Revolution Controller UNVEILED!

[OCybrManO]

There's a video of people playing various types of games (not showing the games themselves) that might give some people a better idea of how it works:

http://www.dagbladet.no/kultur/2005/09/16/443527.html

 

[Lemonking]

WOW that does look cool
any word on the price?

 

[ailevation]

Wow, it is certainly something different. Kind of cool, but yet it's not... because it's going to take time to adjust to. Ahh well.

 

[guchi]

wow, just wow! i mean, imagine using two controllers at once in an FPS, akimbo anyone?

Im just hoping for great games, and then I will buy it two times over... If they dont manage to get 3rd party support, then oh well...

 

[Dumb Dude]

I highly doubt that there will be a lot of third party support for this. Its just real bad I think. I mean, imagine playing a game like smash brothers. It would be stupid having a room full of people waving their arms in the air. They are just complicating things for NORMAL games. They obviously made this for more stupid games like Nintendogs or other dumb games like that.

 

[Lemonking]

Okay....saga fanboy

^_^ I tthink it would be funny with 4 people waving their hands thrue the air

 

[OCybrManO]

any word on the price?

It's almost definately going to be the cheapest of the three. I can't find the site where I heard but one industry analyist estimated even as low as 19-20,000 yen (google says that's around $175). So, I'd bet on somewhere between $175 and $250.

 

[Lemonking]

WOW maybe Nintendo will be number 1 again

 

[Dumb Dude]

WOW maybe Nintendo will be number 1 again

And I'm the fanboy.....

 

[satch919]

I highly doubt that there will be a lot of third party support for this. Its just real bad I think. I mean, imagine playing a game like smash brothers. It would be stupid having a room full of people waving their arms in the air. They are just complicating things for NORMAL games. They obviously made this for more stupid games like Nintendogs or other dumb games like that.

Well, you definitely live up to your user name.

Don't you think it's a bit early to start saying how new games will make use of this technology? We still don't know the limitations of the device yet. For all we know, this could be the new way to play games.

Seeing as you already know the lineup for the Revolution, how about you name the price point and the release date too.

 

[Lemonking]

That was a joke........it wasnt serious

cuz you have a Sonic avatar

 

[gh0st]

looks gay honestly. i can understand why fairy nintendo fanboys would like to wave their magical controller like a wand at their television screen. not that i play games to look manly or anything, i just cant imagine heading to a lan party playing a rousing game of nintendogs 2 while manipulating a crystalline phallus at the tv. im sure it will be fun, but it will be gimmicky stupid fun which loses its "fun" factor very rapidly. moreover, it looks REALLY uncomfortable to play all the vaunted nes, and snes, and n64 games on it. to play n64 games i'm sure you will need to buy an adapter which will be 30 bucks. to play other systems games i'm sure you need some crazy shoulder-button device.

i want nintendo to succeed but this gimmicky shit is pissing me off.

 

[Septih]

looks gay honestly. i can understand why fairy nintendo fanboys would like to wave their magical controller like a wand at their television screen. not that i play games to look manly or anything, i just cant imagine heading to a lan party playing a rousing game of nintendogs 2 while manipulating a crystalline phallus at the tv. im sure it will be fun, but it will be gimmicky stupid fun which loses its "fun" factor very rapidly. moreover, it looks REALLY uncomfortable to play all the vaunted nes, and snes, and n64 games on it. to play n64 games i'm sure you will need to buy an adapter which will be 30 bucks. to play other systems games i'm sure you need some crazy shoulder-button device.

i want nintendo to succeed but this gimmicky shit is pissing me off.

i was under the impression that the back catalogue would be downloadable, not via the old cartrdiges, and the console has ports for the old controllers

 

[gh0st]

i was under the impression that the back catalogue would be downloadable, not via the old cartrdiges, and the console has ports for the old controllers

the console has ports for the old controllers.. do you have a source for that? i have to use all my busted ass snes controllers, which means i'll have to buy new ones which means nintendo will have to start making them again which doesnt make sense... why would they expect the old controllers to last 13 years?

i meant literally how do they intend to control old n64 etc games with that tv remote?

 

[The Mullinator]

To all those people thinking it will be impossible to play other more normal games like Smash brothers then just remember that it is highly unlikely that Nintendo would have bothered to allow games from all their previous systems to be playable on the Revolution if the new controller concept simply makes them too awkward to play.

I am pretty damn certain Nintendo had a plan for this kind of thing long ago.

Also don't talk about it being too gimmicky. Every console is pretty guilty right now of doing pretty stupid things to get money out of you.

As far as I can tell this thing is a very unique device that I have to say is pretty damn sweet. If this isn't your definition of revolutionary in the game industry then I am sorry to say but it probably would have been impossible to satisfy you.

the console has ports for the old controllers.. do you have a source for that? i have to use all my busted ass snes controllers, which means i'll have to buy new ones which means nintendo will have to start making them again which doesnt make sense... why would they expect the old controllers to last 13 years?

i meant literally how do they intend to control old n64 etc games with that tv remote?

They have ports for game cube controllers only according to a few pictures I had seen earlier. I am pretty sure that means you only need gamecube controllers and I am also pretty certain that if you truly do need them then they will sell them seperately.

 

[gh0st]

what are the ps3 and 360 doing thats stupid to get money out of us?

and who says i'm not satisfied? this is the kind of garbage i would have expected from nintendo of late. a tv remote with motion sensors. whoopee. i'd rather just have a regular wireless controller like the S or the dual shock.

 

[The Mullinator]

what are the ps3 and 360 doing thats stupid to get money out of us?

and who says i'm not satisfied? this is the kind of garbage i would have expected from nintendo of late. a tv remote with motion sensors. whoopee. i'd rather just have a regular wireless controller like the S or the dual shock.

There is no point in arguing with you. You are either a Nintendo hater or a fully devoted "fanboy" of whatever your favorite console may be.

Everything you have stated here is an opinion, sorry but its not fact. My opinion is that this is far better than what Sony and Microsoft have been offering.

 

[A True Canadian]

They have ports for game cube controllers only according to a few pictures I had seen earlier. I am pretty sure that means you only need gamecube controllers and I am also pretty certain that if you truly do need them then they will sell them seperately.

That makes sense. And because the Revolution is to be at a cheaper price than the other consoles it's not like you'd be losing any money if you need to buy GameCube controllers.


My mind is racing as to the gameplay possibilities with this thing. Think about shooters...holding your hand out the whole time might actually improve the immersiveness as your fatigue will impact your shooting ability.

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

Gets my vote.

 

[dream431ca]

This might actually work out! I would have to see a real demonstration though before I make up my mind but...it sounds extremely promising.

 

[AmishSlayer]

what are the ps3 and 360 doing thats stupid to get money out of us?

Don't know about PS3...but as for Xbox

Xbox Live.... 'nuff said.

I'm glad SOMEBODY's changing the formula. I like what I see as long as there's good games that come out and not too many peripherals required for good games.

As far as I'm concerned..the analog attachment should be included because I bet most games will need it.

 

[Absinthe]

Hahahaha that looks ****ing terrible.

*Scratches out the Revolution as a potential purchase*

Xbox Live.... 'nuff said.

o noes!!1

Paying for an online service! What an unnecessary and stupid concept!

 

[OCybrManO]

Paying for an online service! What an unnecessary and stupid concept!

Actually, yes... it is. Nintendo's plan is to do it for free on the Revolution (and I think the DS, too).

As for you not buying a Revolution... that's your choice.

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

Hahahaha that looks ****ing terrible.

*Scratches out the Revolution as a potential purchase*



o noes!!1

Paying for an online service! What an unnecessary and stupid concept!

I'm far more interested in how it plays than how it looks.

 

[Absinthe]

Wait, Microsoft is stupid for adding a price tag for their service? That's a ridiculous idea and you know it. As an optional feature they have every right to charge you for it. And it's not like it's burning a hole in your wallet. Any person who can take up an expensive hobby such as gaming should be able to fork out a few bucks every month.

That money is going into maintaining a system. I'd like to see Nintendo cough up anything as high a standard as Live when they have no financial impetus and can subject their standards to the breeze.

Bottom line: Nobody is stupid for charging for their product, regardless of wether or not Nintendo is doing the same.

I'm far more interested in how it plays than how it looks.

And when I said it looked terrible, I inferred that it looks awkward and unenjoyable to play with. At least for me.

From the examples they gave in the article, this sounds like something I won't waste my time with.

 

[DigiQ8]

thats what we need for next gen , new ideas , not just upgrading the graphics every gen.
This controller will create many new game styles.

P.S i wanna touch that thing !

 

[Kangy]

I'd be interested in how it ends up playing, but it looks like a shocking concept to me. It's going to completely alienate the Revolution in terms of third party software. And I don't really want to be waving my hand around for 2 hours just to play games, either.

It doesn't look very revolutionary, it just looks painful and ugly.

 

[<RJMC>]

wow you people surprise

nintendo comes whit this idea that can be very cool and interesting thing and you all go "oh it looks ugly" "oh I dont want to move my hands" "oh its too diferent is gay"
you should recognize that nintendo is doing something more that just a console whit better graphics

realy this controller looks very interesting the only thing I dont like is the remote control shape

 

[Lucid]

Looks extremely weird...

I'll hold off until I see game demos or reviews...

 

[Z|insane]

I dont know what to think... I want to see how it feels first..

 

[<RJMC>]

hey read the gamespot hands on it say that the controller maybe is still a work in progress

The form factor on display wasn't the absolute final design for the Revolution controller, and Nintendo reps noted that it is still a work in progress. That said, it was enough to give us an idea of where the company is headed. The controller itself bears no resemblance to the myriad fan-generated renderings purporting to be the real deal. The unit basically looks like a slim, ergonomic television remote that's about as long as your hand

http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/09/15/news_6133335.html

 

[OCybrManO]

Wait, Microsoft is stupid for adding a price tag for their service? That's a ridiculous idea and you know it. As an optional feature they have every right to charge you for it. And it's not like it's burning a hole in your wallet. Any person who can take up an expensive hobby such as gaming should be able to fork out a few bucks every month.

That money is going into maintaining a system. I'd like to see Nintendo cough up anything as high a standard as Live when they have no financial impetus and can subject their standards to the breeze.

Bottom line: Nobody is stupid for charging for their product, regardless of wether or not Nintendo is doing the same.

Nintendo is probably going to fund the online service by offering premium downloads of their old games through a Steam-like service... so that everyone can still play online and use the other features for free. Instead, Microsoft makes you pay for something that is, essentially, a standardized server browser (since Microsoft isn't actually hosting the games, and they're using your bandwidth) and allowing additional premium downloads that aren't covered by the subscription fee (they warn you about that when you are setting up your Live account)... while giving only a stripped down free version to people that don't have Xbox Live Gold (or whatever).

Basically, it would be like Valve adding stat tracking then charging us a monthly fee to use Steam to play games online... or like EA charging you to go online to play BF2. Is that necessary? No. Now, IF Microsoft were hosting their own massive server farms so we could play on them... like in a MMORPG... I could see charging a subscription fee. Instead, it's like Steam + a Jabber client + a stat tracker. Wow. I use it... but I don't like it. There just aren't enough features to warrant the price.

Also, that "Any person who can take up an expensive hobby such as gaming should be able to fork out a few bucks every month" statement is just plain retarded. Hmmm, what do we do to an already expensive hobby? I know... make people pay even more for features that PC, Nintendo, and Sony gamers will get for free! Brilliant! No. Consoles are made to be affordable. PCs are the really expensive hobby... and even those don't charge you to play online in addition to the cost of your ISP (except in the aforementioned case of MMORPGs with massive server/bandwidth costs).

Bottom Line: Your original statement, that it is necessary to charge a subscription fee for something resembling Xbox Live, is false. Stupid? No, of course not... if you want to squeeze as much profit out of your customers as possible... but that's not what we were talking about. We're talking about gimmicks companies use to squeeze extra money out of their customers unnecessarily. If everyone else can do it for free... it must not be necessary to pay to be able to play online... right?

 

[Absinthe]

Nintendo is probably...

Welcome to the realm of speculation.

going to fund the online service by offering premium downloads of their old games through a Steam-like service...

Old games that nobody would buy nowadays and are more of a marketing tool as opposed to new content through Live. Yes, your comparison is really valid.

Instead, Microsoft makes you pay for something that is, essentially, a standardized server browser (since Microsoft isn't actually hosting the games, and they're using your bandwidth) and allowing additional premium downloads that aren't covered by the subscription fee (they warn you about that when you are setting up your Live account)... while giving only a stripped down free version to people that don't have Xbox Live Gold (or whatever).

Money also goes into maintenance, technical aspects, free content, database management, friends tracking, and the setup of Live itself is such a momentously easy and streamlined task that doesn't require extraneous peripherals. To say it's nothing more than a server browser displays woeful ignorance on your part.

Also, that "Any person who can take up an expensive hobby such as gaming should be able to fork out a few bucks every month" statement is just plain retarded. Hmmm, what do we do to an already expensive hobby? I know... make people pay even more for features that PC, Nintendo, and Sony gamers will get for free! Brilliant! No. Consoles are made to be affordable. PCs are the really expensive hobby... and even those don't charge you to play online in addition to the cost of your ISP (except in the aforementioned case of MMORPGs with massive server/bandwidth costs).

It's called price ranging. If you can afford a Mercedes, then it's reasonable to assume you can afford a carwash. If you have wine, you can buy a corkscrew. If you can shell out fifty bucks for a game, three hundred for a console, and buy a TV as well, then you should be capable of paying ten measly bucks per month. Perhaps your argument would have some validity of they were sucking the cash from your wallet via your asshole, but they're not. And gosh, if it's such a steep price, then don't sign up for the service.

As for everybody else getting Live features for free... not entirely true. What exactly you're getting out of Nintendo's package has not been fully disclosed. And if my knowledge is up to date, neither has Sony's. And before you wag your finger at me saying "OMG ABSINTHE THEN HOW DO YOU KNOW THEY WILL BE TEH SUCK" - No. It's entirely reasonable to expect that service requiring a subscription fee will be of higher quality than the one that's free because giving the consumer a bucket of shit for their money will hurt them. That's why Runescape sucks compared to World of Warcraft. That's why your free FPS user-made from scratch is usually balls compared to a professional product. Good things often require cash. Why Microsoft should be seen as stupid for falling in line with this particular truism seems to be something grounded more in your idealism rather than practicality.

Bottom Line: Your original statement, that it is necessary to charge a subscription fee for something resembling Xbox Live, is false. Stupid? No, of course not... if you want to squeeze as much profit out of your customers as possible... but that's not what we were talking about. We're talking about gimmicks companies use to squeeze extra money out of their customers unnecessarily. If everyone else can do it for free... it must not be necessary to pay to be able to play online... right?

1.) Don't butcher my original statement. I never said it was necessary. I said it wasn't stupid. GG on fighting a straw man.
2.) Furthermore, don't try to reverse yourself. You directly implied that MS charging for their service is stupid in your initial reply to me.
3.) Squeeze money from their customers? HA! This hyperbole is ridiculous. If you can't afford to give up a minor monthly fee, then maybe you need a source of income or daddy's credit card.
4.) Everybody's service isn't the same as Live.

If Live's fee was really the massive consumer injustice you make it out to be, it wouldn't be used. But that doesn't seem to be the case. People are gladly paying for their service as we speak and I'm not hearing many complaints. I dunno, maybe it's because they're reasonable.

 

[OCybrManO]

Except I never said that. Your entire argument rests on a straw man. gg

Oh, wait... what's this?

Paying for an online service! What an unnecessary and stupid concept!

gg, indeed...

 

[Absinthe]

Ha! No. It's necessary if you want ensured quality and maintained standards.

Perhaps you live in a world where money is valueless. I don't. I pay and recieve accordingly and equitably.

ADDED: Now, that said - If Nintendo and Sony can deliver something as high of quality as Live for free, then kudos to them. But I don't see it happening.

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

I'd be interested in how it ends up playing, but it looks like a shocking concept to me. It's going to completely alienate the Revolution in terms of third party software.

I couldn't agree less. This will allow for more and better third-party software. Finally, there's a console with a decent analogue control device for FPS games, one that is mouse-like in that you can "snap" to a point on the screen rather than having to scroll your way across it. It also opens up the RTS genre, which has traditionally not done very well on consoles. Or how about a new Jedi Knight game where you actually weild the lightsaber yourself? Flight Sim - use it as a joystick. I don't see it restricting anything in that regard.

 

[Warbie]

Woh - i'm shocked, and feel a weird combination of doubt and excitement.

I have faith that the controller will work as intended, and offer some truly unique gaming experiences - it's just so far out there that anyone would feel a little dubious (10/10 for innovation, creativity, and balls, though)

Let's also wait and see how it plays before passing judgement. The DS turned out to be far from a gimmick, despite so many predicting otherwise (I strongly disagree with the IGN artcile), and Nintendo know what they are doing.

There was bound to be a knee jerk reaction with some people (some of the replies of this thread are laughable) - there is with anything new. Even the most die hard Nintendo fans are feeling a little cautious. So, if you're not interested in trying something new, or applauding Nintendo for continuing to innovate, then stick with the same old tired games we've all been playing for years and be happy (but this time - with better graphics, woohoo \o/ )

 

[StardogChampion]

I still like my programmable buttons idea better, but this sounds interesting, especially the 3D mouse thing.

I think this attachment thing will be great. The attachments seem pretty small, so a flight sim could bundle in a little cheap joystick or whatever.

 

[Murray_H]

I'm worried that the games may consist of simple, repetative tasks thanks to the controller, but then again they may not. It does sound like it goes some way to bridging the gap between pc control and console control, which is something I want to happen.

Although I'm not planning on buying a revolution, it looks like it could be a cool controller. So long as the games don't consist of a handful of nintendo characters doing something stupid with the ocassional great game, I may consider getting it (as a second console though ).

 

[Maxi]

Holy ****! RTS's will be AMAZING on this console, if it works that is.