Talk:Wii/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Wii. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Someone posted this in the article, "The codename refers to the console's promised "SHIT" of the video-game industry. For example, the console's controller, which can detect its exact location and orientation in 3D space, is a concept never before seen in mainstream video game consoles and never wanted to be seen...Nintendo is a pure failure."

Who added that and what was it originally suppose to say. Can someone please correct it.

Mag

To whom ever is adding data to the rumour section, PLEASE STATE THE SOURCE WHERE YOU HAVE GOTTEN IT FROM. Or else, I will have to delete all information inside the Rumour section (even though if it's true) and find the information again with me having the proof/site. And I give you all a week to sort it out, and if it has being done in a week, I will have to make the rumour section into a vote and confront the wiki members if the rumour section needs deleting or not.

>x<ino 00:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted the following:

• The Revolution may support a physics processing unit, with 32 MB of RAM. It will link to the CPU, GPU, and controller.
  • Additionally, Jim Merrick of NoE stated that the hardware specs won't be released far from the Revolution's launch, if ever. This is an attempt to put down the importance of specifications, and the fact that non-gamers, an audience they're trying to reach, may not care.
  • In another statement, Jim Merrick claimed that "there would be no significant difference between the graphical abilities of the console compared to other next generation systems".

As the 2nd two points arent even rumours so shouldn't be in the rumours section. And the first point has no source and I have followed the Revolution for quite some time and the 'rumour' of a Physics Processor was not a romour, it was SPECULATION, which doesn't belong in the Rumours section. In future I may look over the Rumours section as it is still pretty messy and contains debunked rumours and speculation. The Rumours section should be seperate from Speculation so it is clear what is rumoured and what is speculated. NeoRicen 11:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

To whom ever is adding a data to the rumour section, PLEASE STATE THE SOURCE WHERE YOU HAVE GOTTEN IT FROM. Or els, I will have to delete all information inside the Rumour section (even though if it's true) and find the information again with me having the proof/site. And I give you all a week to sort it out, and if it has being done in a week, I will have to make the rumour section into a vote and confront the wiki members if the rumour section needs deleting or not.

>x<ino 00:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be some mentioning of the rumors that there will be a $100 visor for stereoscopic play for the revolution? (which fits with the 3d-space controller nicely). From my point of view this is what would really set the revolution apart from the xbox360 and the ps3 (lots of 3d games like Mario 3d, Zelda 3d).

http://revolutionspecs.blogspot.com/2005/12/details-on-revolution-system-and-new.html

-- StephanSchmidt

You could put a mention under rumours and speculation, but rumours like this have existed for pretty much every console, and the only source is a single blog. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Ho Ho Ho!)} 10:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, there are was a hype after the (fake) nintendo ON video, but reps from nintendo did hint in that direction, see http://www.playbomb.com/2005/12/12/125/nintendo-on-why-its-fake-and-why-its-not/ and http://seriousgamer007.blogspot.com/ -- StephanSchmidt

Here is the rumour as it was in the article:

* There are rumors that Nintendo will release a sub-$200 steroscopic visor accessory for the Revolution[1][2]. There are also some hints in that direction from people who claim to have been behind the Xbox viral marketing program [3]. eMagin[4] are said to be behind[5] the hardware and their $800 price tag will drop due to Nintendo mass marketing. Taken with quite some grains of salt as the Virtual Boy was a disaster for Nintendo.

From what I see, blogs are used to speculate. See about dubious sources: Personal websites and blogs are not acceptable as sources, except on the rare occasion that a well-known person, or a known professional journalist or researcher in a relevant field, has set up such a website.

Let keep the rumour here until a credible source is quoted. -- ReyBrujo 19:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, but to me it seems quite funny to request "credible" sources for rumours. This kind of contradicts the meaning of rumour. For important rumours there are no credible sources, all credible sources are biten by NDAs. "Credible" sources (anonymous developers quoted on IGN are credible?) will only spill unimportant information like specs. But ok, I'll keep the visor rumour here. We'll talk again after you bought a visor in 2006 and have been played zelda ;-) --StephanSchmidt —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.95.173.185 (talk • contribs) .

The likelyness of a Visor is HIGHLY unlikely and I pity anyone who believes this 'rumour'. It should be deleted considering it was recently debunked when Nintendo purchase some visors from a 3rd party which denied it was being used in Revolution. NeoRicen 11:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

To whom ever is adding a data to the rumour section, PLEASE STATE THE SOURCE WHERE YOU HAVE GOTTEN IT FROM. Or els, I will have to delete all information inside the Rumour section (even though if it's true) and find the information again with me having the proof/site. And I give you all a week to sort it out, and if it has being done in a week, I will have to make the rumour section into a vote and confront the wiki members if the rumour section needs deleting or not.

>x<ino 00:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

"The likelyness of a Visor is HIGHLY unlikely and I pity anyone who believes this 'rumour'. It should be deleted considering it was recently debunked when Nintendo purchase some visors from a 3rd party which denied it was being used in Revolution."

This makes me LOL. You must not know how nintendo works, do you? You REALLY think that when nintendo says "it doesn't have *insert words*" it's not necessarily true. Just like when Reggie said 4 days before the DS lite was revealed "We will not reveal a redesigned ds" or something along those lines. And when they said in 2004 that they would definately change the name "Nintendo DS", look what happened. It's totally possible that the RS will use some type of visor.

According to Jeux France, IGN is suggesting Revolution would launch on November 25, 2006. [6] I am not able to find that article at this time, though. -- ReyBrujo 05:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

: IGN Revolution Says Thanksgiving 2006. I'm not sure where this best goes on the page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.169.35.43 (talk • contribs) .

Neat, couldn't find it before. Thank you! -- ReyBrujo 12:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

To whom ever is adding a data to the rumour section, PLEASE STATE THE SOURCE WHERE YOU HAVE GOTTEN IT FROM. Or els, I will have to delete all information inside the Rumour section (even though if it's true) and find the information again with me having the proof/site. And I give you all a week to sort it out, and if it has being done in a week, I will have to make the rumour section into a vote and confront the wiki members if the rumour section needs deleting or not.

>x<ino 00:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Concidering this entry "Nintendo has announced that more details about the system will be made public on May 9, 2006 at their E³ 2006 Press Conference." I think it's safe to say the system won't be out before May 9th. I know it's speculation, but I think it would be safe to say it won't be out before June, so I took the liberty of changing this.

Alright, looking over the changes a bit more all I can see is that User 70.112.76.158 made a couple of edits to the hardware specs with no addition to source material, nor did they anywhere attribute the changes to an outside article. I will revert the changes and invite 70.112.76.158 to provide the source for their changes before making them. 141.233.81.113 23:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The above is me, just figured I'd make an account after trolling the Wikipedia for a good year now :) Erik C 00:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Zephyrxero has done a much better job with the new Hardware rumor and I think it looks good as it is. Erik C 16:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed some hardware specifications that are speculation i.e. No actual confirmation as yet that IBM processor will be a PowerPC, same for actual amount of RAM, also 4 wireless controllers - not necessarily 4 (may be more?). All that is known so far is the names of companies that nintendo have been working with - this is right?HappyVR 00:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Innovations (such as the inclusion of a D-Pad and later an analog stick as standard, wireless controller technology, shoulder buttons, vibrating feedback for controllers, and four controller ports) have been widely disseminated following their mainstream arrival on Nintendo's machines.

This passage was not written by me but I have been restoring it as it gets removed. If you believe it should not be in the article please use this area to make your case. I think that It should stay because the wording makes it clear that it refers only to mainstream adoption not to invention. Thoughts?Vegasjon 17:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Nintendo holds the patent for the standard D-pad. Also see Nintendo game controllers. -- ReyBrujo 17:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll be plain about it; the fact that nobody noticed the part where someone said Nintendo made all these particular things was troubling. The very fact that people would assume that just because NINTENDO did them, that they became mainstream, is even more troubling. All the things mentioned were already in the works beforehand; even if Nintendo had never put them out, they still would have been released to the public. For example:

Analog Stick - When it comes to invention, Nintendo certainly didn't do this one. It first popped up on the Vectrex and the Atari 5200 http://www.atari-computermuseum.de/pics/thumbs/cx52.jpg , (the latter had a self-recentering joystick, the former didn't). After that, analog sticks languished for a bit.

Now, you're assuming that Nintendo's use of it in the N64 "mainstreamed" it, but that's wrong too. In early (February) 1995 Sony made a first attempt at one (It was an analog flightstick, SCPH-1110), and then went back to the drawing board. Late in September that same year they announced a new effort with an analog controller (in a press released titled "what's with that playstation", http://www.gamezero.com/team-0/whats_new/past/news9508.html ), along with news about the multitap. Technical and licensing problems delayed the controller until 1996, when they finally revealed the Dual Analog. If Nintendo had never even bothered with an analog stick for the Nintendo 64, Sony's Dual Analog would still exist, since it had been in development BEFORE THE N64 CONTROLLER was released. Which brings up the next thing...

Rumble-

That's a form of force feedback (which had been in arcades for years). But most noteably, it was in the first versions of the http://www.the-nextlevel.com/features/hardware/dual-analog-pad/ in Japan. Presumably for expense reasons it was removed from later Japanese and all the American Dual Analog sticks. When it comes to Nintendo, rumble wouldn't arrive on the N64 until 1997, when the Rumble Pak was bundled with Star Fox 64. Meaning, whether or not Nintendo had incorporated it, it STILL would have been mainstreamed.

As for wireless controllers, everyone knows that wireless controllers have been around since the 80s. Heck, even if you want to skip the IR thing and go right with the tech Nintendo adopted for the wavebird, that was done there too! Atari had a similar RF-wave set of controllers; however battery technology at the time, as well as antenna signal strength, made them prohibitively bulky and cumbersome. The wavebird is an update of this existing technology, not a new innovation.

Four controller ports were featured on the Bally Pro Arcade way back in the 70s...

http://www.classicgaming.com/gamingmuseum/bally.html

And so on, and so forth.

But what I'm getting at is this... there are a lot of LEGITIMATE things Nintendo did do, so why don't we include those? Such as being the first to create a home game console with stereo sound (the Japanese Famicom supported this). Or having the first console that supported battery-backup in games (something INSANELY useful until EEPROM chips became popular). Or being the first home console that supported disk media. Or being the first to create a console that supported more than 16 players together at once (the GameBoy supported this). They were the first to have a home console that featured a full wave table synth instead of just cruddy FM snyth (the SNES). And most importantly, their implementation of strict controls over games (they went over every detail to make sure any game on their systems was up to their standards) arguably saved console gaming from the crash; they instilled consumer confidence in the market once again, prevented a flood of crap games from invading the market, and made sure that the games industry was one to truly be taken seriously. THESE are actual, legitimate inventions Nintendo has created. We don't need to hide behind falsehoods of paper when we've got the bricks of truth sitting right here in front of us!

So here's what I'm doing. I'm erasing the false things attributed to Nintendo. They don't need to be there at all. What I will do is put the things Nintendo DO do, in their place. It's a fair compromise, and quite a bit more civil than just a simple revert. Daniel Davis 01:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC) (Doom127)

I don't see anything wrong with the given sentence. It is not saying that they were invented by Nintendo, but instead that Nintendo virtually defined the standard implementations. A variation of the D-Pad was created before Nintendo, but it was Nintendo's implementation that became standard. Analog sticks were created before Nintendo, but it was Nintendo's implementation that became the standard. Rumble pack was invented before Nintendo, but it was Nintendo's implementation that became standard. Shoulder buttons, D-Pad + Analog stick in the same controller, Portable + Console interaction, flash memory in cartridges to save games instead of using passwords...

To put an example, you don't see an Atari 5200-like analog stick in nowadays controllers, but instead a N64-like one.

By the way, a compromise is achieved after you have heard all sides. From what I see, you expressed your points and immediately modified the article before hearing other sides. Quoting you, It goes against the spirit of Wiki; we're all friends here. -- ReyBrujo 03:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with some of your assumptions. It WASN'T "Nintendo's implementation" that became standard, Rey. The N64 analog stick, and the stick that was created for the Dual Analog, were both developed independently. Whereas there is a popular idea that either one were dependent upon the others, this isn't the case at all. In fact, one who looks into the dev process can see that the Sony sticks and the Nintendo sticks (while they're both analog, true) function entirely differently, in both modes of operation and in design. For example, their calibration modes are completely different. The reason for is because the basis for the analog design on the Dual Shock almost totally relies on modified technology from Sony's analog flight stick, with a different range of motion designed for thumb use instead of overall joystick operation. And again, it wasn't "Nintendo's implementation" of rumble that became standard, since there were little to no changes between the rumble technology's methods of operation in the Dual Analog (which were created before the Rumble Pack) and the subsequent Dual Shock.

Besides all this, the technologies you're discussing were are modifications Ninetndo made of earlier existing prior technology. You have to admit that it's far more socially relevant to include technology that hasn't HAD a basis in consoles beforehand, so it can be surmised that Nintendo actually DID create the console-based technology instead of just modifying it. That way, companies that copy the technology have no basis in a claim of prior technology updating. Daniel Davis 04:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC) (Doom127)

Oh, and the "spirit of wiki" refers to a person who was calling someone else a moron. Disagreeing with an edit that contains incorrect information isn't anywhere NEAR that same level of maliciousness. Daniel Davis 04:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

From my point of view, you are commiting a mistake: comparing Sony plans with Nintendo facts. Either compare Sony and Nintendo facts, or Sony and Nintendo plans. You already stated that, in facts, Nintendo controller became mainstream before Sony's. In plans, Sony revealed plans to create a joystick on February 1995. However, remember that the Nintendo 64 wasn't created in just a year. In November 1995, when the console was presented, it was fully working. Console designs went back to 1993, when it was called Project Reality. Assumption 1: If Sony needed a year to get the design right, Nintendo may not have been able to do it in less than a year.

Miyamoto stated in an interview [7] that it took them 3 years to finish the design, and a year and a half to implement them in the N64 hardware. Since the interview is from October 1996, that goes back to October 1993 for the design, plus 18 months for the implementation in the hardware, making it April 1995. Assumption 2: By April 1995 they should have already been able to playtest a version of Super Mario 64 with a working console and controller, even if not the final version.

Sure, those are assumptions. However, people is not playing PlayStation 2 games with SCPH-1110-like sticks, but instead with thumb-sticks, which became mainstream with the N64 controller, and which may (based on my two previous assumptions) have been designed before Sony's. I quote Nintendo 64 article: The Vectrex in fact had introduced analog joysticks, while the first to feature four controller ports was the Bally Astrocade. Regardless, the Nintendo 64 was the first popular system to have these features. Since we are discussing whether the original quote was right or not, a rewording would also do, in example, Its consoles were the first popular ones to include a D-Pad, shoulder buttons, an analog stick and four controller ports. It could also be added the two D-Pads of the Virtual Boy and the touch screen and microphone in the Nintendo DS for portable consoles.

In other words, the analog stick became standard for Nintendo when they included it in the N64, since the original controller for the console included one. The analog sticks became standard for Sony when they included them in the PS2 package (and maybe the revised PS version, if it came bundled with one).

Finally, I remind you the one-revert rule: if you edit the article, and someone reverts your change, discuss it in the Talk page leaving the original version live (not the one you modified). -- ReyBrujo 05:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Rey, we could argue till we're blue in the face about analog stick histories, about calibrations and minutia regarding startups and things. Given that neither of us is an actual employee of the company, however, we're both still arguing about speculation and our own point of view. There's not a way of proving to the satisfaction of the other about the real origins of these controllers, in large part due to a significant amount of secrecy that the companies held, even back then.

Given that Wiki is an often relied on source, and given that the paragraph is dedicated to technologies that Nintendo KNOWS other companies stole, shouldn't we use things that we can prove, in a verifiable sense, that Nintendo created? We know for a fact that Nintendo were the innovators in the battery backups, we know for a fact that they were the first company to put stereo sound in a home console, the first to use wavetable in a home console, the first to set up a system to use 16+ simultaneous multiplayer in a console. These are proveable items. There were a lot of companies working on their own variations of many things, but we know for a fact that Nintendo was the prime and initial innovator in these things that were previously described.

Thus, in a paragraph that details how competitors steal Nintendo's innovations, it should contain items that NINTENDO solely innovated, and that we know for a fact other companies herafter copied. I think that, if we want to include speculation on Nintendo popularizing technologies, it might be a good idea to include that into Nintendo's overall history (on their page), but in a small, one paragraph blurb dedicated specifically to technologies that Nintendo pioneered and other companies stole or copied, it's just only fair that we use those technologies that are Nintendo's creations. Daniel Davis 06:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC) (Doom127)

The objective of Doom127 in Wikipedia is disrupt articles see Ken Kutaragi dispute he commit lot of vandalism with sockpuppets. --Quackshot 22:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

As it is usually said, we agree we disagree. Following is a list of what I believe Nintendo innovations. Please add but don't remove, instead strike the ones you believe have not been made by Nintendo. -- ReyBrujo 12:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• The Legend of Zelda (NES): first cartridge to add an internal battery.
• Super Mario Bros. 3 (NES): first cartridge to incorporate a custom chip.
• SNES controller: First controller to incorporate shoulder buttons.
• Virtual Boy controller: First controller to incorporate two D-pads for 3D movement.
• D-pad: First controller to incorporate a cross-shaped D-Pad.
• NES Zapper: First console light gun.
• Satellaview: SNES is the first console to support online game downloads in 1995.
• The controller of the Nintendo 64 was the first one to include both a D-Pad and an analog stick.

You're right about Zelda and the VB controller. However....

* The Magnavox Odessey was the first home console with a light gun.

* Custom Nintendo created chips had actually been incorporated since the very first Famicom cartridge as well, not just with Mario 3. Nintendo utilized such a chip, a patented one called 10NES, to prevent unlicensed developers from creating games for the NES.

* As for downnloads, the Atari 2600 used a modem and a dialup service called GameLine that allowed you to download games.

* The Entex SelectAGame Dpad layout was cross shaped. It was much in the same way the PS2 one was, where the topkey was connected below the plastic outer shell for balance. Entex actually used that pad type (where the pad itself is connected below instead of above) on a lot of their handheld games.

http://www.rolentapress.com/rolenta/collection/magnavox/odyssey-rifle.jpg

http://vividpicture.com/aleks/atari/gameline.jpg

http://www.answers.com/topic/10nes

http://www.handheldmuseum.com/Entex/Soccer.htm -An entex handheld soccer game

Since you have requested it, you should go ahead and make the changes to the article. Daniel Davis 16:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC) (Doom127)

I've changed this passage from a terribly long sentence to a table. But can't we just remove this stuff from the article? It belongs in the Nintendo article, not here. Jacoplane 23:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

It's because it's the reason why, according to Nintendo, they've been keeping information from the public in regards to the Revolution. Nintendo has stated that the Revolution is so... er... revolutionary, and because their technology has been "stolen" in the past, that this time they don't want to take the risk of the technology being appropriated by the competition. Daniel Davis 23:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC) (Doom127)

I certainly agree that the article should mention the reason that Nintendo is being so secretive, including their tech being stolen. I just don't think that listing their previous innovations in this article is appropriate. In any case, isn't this true for many other companies too, like Apple. Secrecy is the norm in the corporate world. Jacoplane 00:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The Entex wasn't a home console as the NES was, we can clarify that. As for the custom chip in SMB3, I was referring to a chip which helps the main CPU console, not just a copy protection scheme. I also agree with Jacoplane. Just a couple of innovations are enough. I was just making a list to see which ones were the most significative (in example, that someone who is 10 years old would understand and appreciate). -- ReyBrujo 00:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Rey, most of Nintendo's listed innovations were actually made in the non-console arena. Their single-key Dpad, the 16+ player link and the dual dpad configuration were all things that were originally concieved and implemented on non-home Nintendo systems. Are we still to exclude them? Daniel Davis 04:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC) (Doom127)

Some of this discourse is straying from constructive. However, I'm finding merit in most of it. Keep it up and perhaps we can achieve a compromise that will be accurate as far as all knowledgeable and well meaning users are concerned.Vegasjon 22:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

"Nintendo has had a tendency to be coy with release of information regarding the Revolution, leaving some media outlets with the idea that Nintendo was not prepared or did not have the intention to compete with Microsoft's Xbox 360, and Sony's PlayStation 3. Top executives at the company denied that and insisted that they were simply protecting their intellectual property from imitation by competitors before the system is released. Nintendo claims that their secrecy is because other competitors have stolen their previous innovations. This is true to an extent.

Nintendo's consoles were the first home systems to incorporate several key features:

Stereo sound (Famicom) Support for 16+ players simultaneously (Game Boy) Strict quality controls (preventing a flood of terrible games from going on the market, All) Single-key D-Pad (Game and Watch) Shoulder buttons (SNES) Use of standard RCA audio/video jacks (without a modulator, NES) First use of an external robot (Famicom) This added later by someone else: They were the first to make wireless controllers available, the Wavebird, or the first to unveil plans for a wireless controller. also, they were the first to use a controller that rumbled, with the innovation of the rumble pack on the N64. they have the patent on this and other console manufacturers, such as sony and microsoft, copied this feature on future-generation consoles on a similar note, they patented "face mapping". a feature where the player's face can be placed on that of a playable character within the game. this was never actually included in the final version of the game for which is planned (rare's critically acclaimed Perfect Dark)but nintendo secured the patent, and it is well known that this was the first instance of face-mapping. it was done by capturing an image on the game boy camera, and the transfer pack was used to input the data. since then, a version of tony hawk's pro skater on the X-box has used this feature using the X-box's webcam. jast as a note, nintendo did not patent using a camera for gameplay (as done by detecting movement in the playstation 2's "Eye-Toy") nintendo mereley patented "face mapping" an image into the game. "

This is in the Nintendo Revolution article!.

Now let me get this striaght, this article is called Nintendo Revolution, it should have information consisting of the console, not about Nintendo coporation or their business.

Because to me, that just looks like, it was written by a fan(nintendo fan), that fool fan must have edited that because of the judging and critism of Nintendo.
Because i don't see what, "Nintendo's consoles were the first home systems to incorporate several key features:

Stereo sound (Famicom) ". Has to do with the Revolution/console, if you want to state that wonders about Nintendo, then please go put that in Nintendo Article Also for this, "Since their placement on home consoles, all these major innovations have been widely copied by competitors.". After reading this, i know it would have been done by a fan, because fan chat and post crappness about Innovation, when they don't know the meaning, Because that fool Perry (Vice President of Nintend) was convining the audience about their innovative works.

• So i say, either put a source/proof or more description, about that statment
• Delete the entire thing and paste it onto Nintendo article
• Or Wikipedians, would/will have to choose/vote to either leave it or take it off

>x<ino 14:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I actually agree here. Although I can see some truth in this (the WaveBird was the first official wireless controller) it doesn't belong in the Revolution article. Interestingly, the thing starts off reasonably well written and ends with the almost meaningless "jast as a note, nintendo did not patent using a camera for gameplay (as done by detecting movement in the playstation 2's "Eye-Toy") nintendo mereley patented "face mapping" an image into the game". Rewrite before pasting. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Ho Ho Ho!)} 15:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Guys, it's not supposed to be a comprehensive list of all things modified or updated by Nintendo. Nintendo at a conference said that they were keeping a tight lid (even tighter than usual) about the Revolution. They said this because they believe that in the past, they feel that technology they invented had been taken and used by their competitors. That's why that short blurb was in there. What we need to do is keep an eye on it; if something gets added that popped up somewhere on home consoles before Nintendo (like analog or wireless controllers), we can pare that off the list, but things like the stereo sound item (famicom was the first to incorporate this) and the 16+ player ability (It was in the GameBoy) were indeed first put there by Nintendo. Let's also bear in mind that, since it's a list, we need to keep off definitions of each item. Just the item name would be sufficient. God, just a tiny example list causing all this trouble! Daniel Davis 16:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC) (Doom127)

By the way, just in case anyone wants to have a look at the first official wireless controllers, here's a picture of them for you. Amazing how much bulk that several D batteries can add to a controller!

http://www.atariage.com/2600/controllers/con_AtariRemoteControllers.jpg Daniel Davis 16:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC) (Doom127)

smurrayinchester(User), (Ho Ho Ho!) , are you refereing "Rewrite before pasting" that to me?

Because that is exactly what i saw there

"Guys, it's not supposed to be a comprehensive list of all things modified or updated by Nintendo." Daniel Davis

You totally forgot! This is a Nintendo Revolution article, the information it must have has to be about The Nintendo Revolution. Not Nintendo timeline, about them inventing this and that, no one cares if they invented this and that.

Looking at it, after reading all that, that was "innovative" , that Nintendo First Invented. The reader will say..."and the point is..."Because that just shows a list of Nintendo timeline and they belong to the Nintendo article. The notes didn't end well.
"Nintendo at a conference said that they were keeping a tight lid (even tighter than usual) about the Revolution. They said this because they believe that in the past, they feel that technology they invented had been taken and used by their competitors. That's why that short blurb was in there." Yes... but Nintendo wasn't complaining about company copying them, that note was just written by a fan, and fan chat/post sh@t!. Like i said before, either edit it, delete it or move it to Nintendo Article, because people reading it, will just say, that wiki is a fan of nintendo, and that information is.. like every game company developer are copying Nintendo's work. Iwata didn't moan for company copying there works. >x<ino 20:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Yea, that pad looks....better because it was even old

But still, Atari are the creators, not Nintento:P

>x<ino 18:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I think User:Vegasjon version is more neutral. Actually User:Doom127 is disrupting with POV pushing video games articles acusing other users with different POVs as sockpuppets and making lame revert wars. He doesn't obtain sucess with acusations and continues defacing articles pushing their POV and making more and more revert wars. --Quackshot 00:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

What does this personal attack have to do with this discussion? Jacoplane 00:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Look Jacoplane, Doom127 just start another revert war with POV pushing. I assume my words, this isn't personal attack this is a current fact. Doom127 compromissed himself with lot of coward accusations against me and now is trying hide their objectives and Bully negotiations methods. Doom127 contributions in last hours and see that I speaking is truth - accusation of sockpuppets, personal attacks --Quackshot 00:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Listen, I would suggest you (and everyone else involved) first sort out the Ken Kutaragi mess before taking this dispute to other articles. It's been suggested on Talk:Ken Kutaragi that those involved seek more mediation options. As far as I can tell that hasn't happened. This article is for discussing the Nintendo Revolution, not for anything else. There is no debate going on here about "this version is pov" or whatever. If you have a concrete objection to a something stated in the article please do mention it. But going on about POV and sockpuppets and "lame edits" is not helping this discussion. Jacoplane 00:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Doom127 didn't go as far as to call good faith edits vandalism. Doom127 is editing, as far as I can tell, in good faith. I disagree with his view on the accuracy of that paragraph, but a difference of opinion is far from vandalism.Vegasjon 03:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Did I say he was vandalising? Jacoplane 03:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

No, Read the edit history of the article.Vegasjon 03:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know, the entirety of the discussions and edits have been really civil. The only one I know who's accused anyone of being a vandal in this article was QuackShot, and the reason for his behavior has been discussed prior. Daniel Davis 03:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC) (Doom127)

Quackshot's revert wiped out all the changes that other users put into the Technical Specifications section (not just the innovations list). I can understand why VegasJon would want the original listing of innovations, but does anyone know why the Tech Specs section should have been reverted to an earlier version? Daniel Davis 02:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC) (Doom127)

I have reverted QuackShot's changes again. The old "Known specifications" section was full of errors and stated rumours as facts, in addition to being poorly written. If you disagree with the changes, please discuss it before blindly reverting the text. -- Robert Knight

Ya rly Robert Knight? GoldDragon/Doom127 sockpuppet Xbox fanboy ya rly --Quackshot 23:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the comments from the article that the Revolution will be the only console which will be sold at a profit, since this is effectively speculation. It is quite probably accurate, but without good references (which almost certainly won't appear until after the console has been released and the price is known for certain) I don't think it can be included. What the article can say is that it will probably be cheaper than the 360 or the PS3, since Nintendo have said as much to the press (see reference in the article).

I also removed the following text about price since although it relates to the components contained in the console, I don't think "Technical Specifications" is the right section for it:

"The Revolution console is expected to be less expensive than Sony and Microsoft's next generation consoles [8]."

-- Robert Knight 23:50, 9th January 2006 (GMT)

Audio ? Consider this a request for info? The Revolution article contains no info (not even any speculation) on the audio output for this console. Web search equally blank. It's assumed that revolution users will not be playing in total silence? I'm thinking about multichannel sound which usually uses a digital optical out. Can it be assumed that only stereo will be supported possibly with cost saving benefits - no dolby 5.1 licensing etc.HappyVR 14:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I cleaned up the rumor section (it was unusable in its current state because of all the contradictions). Many of the old rumors are now obsolete, and some opinions were being stated as a rumor (such as the speed of the Revolutions 1T-SRAM being 800 MHZ, thats not likely due to the extreme cost of high speed 1T-SRAM). Also, Jim Merrick statements are not "rumors" and should not be in the rumor section. Please try and keep the rumor section in a readable state! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.0.204.65 (talk • contribs) .

According to Yahoo! Japan Satoru Iwata said it will cost less than ¥39795 OOSCARR

To whom ever is adding a data to the rumour section, PLEASE STATE THE SOURCE WHERE YOU HAVE GOTTEN IT FROM. Or els, I will have to delete all information inside the Rumour section (even though if it's true) and find the information again with me having the proof/site. And I give you all a week to sort it out, and if it has being done in a week, I will have to make the rumour section into a vote and confront the wiki members if the rumour section needs deleting or not.

>x<ino 00:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

One more thing you people might want to consider. The patent actually does not refer to displacement mapping. In fact, what is described in the patent is "emboss bump mapping". Emboss bump mapping is a way to achieve the look of bump mapping without the resources. The patent states that the Revolution will support emboss bump mapping in the GPU. This is another internet rumor gone crazy and in fact, most who think the patent says anything about displacement mapping have not even read it. Displacement mapping is not mentioned once in the patent. This should be changed in the rumor section but I left it, because I knew if I changed it, someone would just change it back. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.0.204.65 (talk • contribs) .

IGN Revolution says that EA is supporting Revolution and is in "full possession of pre-alpha development kits" and stuff like that. Why didn't y'all do that, huh? I'll do it. Anonymous, at 12:33 pm, 12/18/05 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 162.83.222.141 (talk • contribs) .

Who ever cleaned this article up, thanks a lot. The rumors part was looking really bad earlier —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.112.76.158 (talk • contribs) .

when ever I am with Nintendo fans, they annoy the hell out me, about Nintendo being the best and braging on about. But looking at that article, it doesn't look like the best to me

If you wanna live up to the sentence/ statement

"Nintendo is better than Sony & Micro$oft"

Then I suggest you clean up the Rumour section, because to me it looks like a fan typed all that section. Some information about the rumour can stay, only if it has a source/link to it proving about the rumour.
Also for the section E3 2006, I moved it!, because visitor doesn't wanna come to the article seeing E3 2006 already, I moved it near the bottom section. And the E3 was good but needs editing, I read it and it says

"A Playable Revolution?" -the title, why the question mark!?

"One source says that Reggie Fils-Aime has revealed (in an interview after GDC)"-that editor that typed that, did a nice job but not nice enough, he typed "GDC" and put a Internal Link to it, which gives out different meaning for GDC.

"GET TO WORK PEOPLE!">x<ino 09:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

To whom ever is adding a data to the rumour section, PLEASE STATE THE SOURCE WHERE YOU HAVE GOTTEN IT FROM. Or els, I will have to delete all information inside the Rumour section (even though if it's true) and find the information again with me having the proof/site. And I give you all a week to sort it out, and if it has being done in a week, I will have to make the rumour section into a vote and confront the wiki members if the rumour section needs deleting or not.

>x<ino 00:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Listen up, people!! If you check RevolutionReport(a lot of info on the rev) there is a list which shows you what developers are and what developers are rumored to work with the Revolution... this is big! and RevReport isn't lying... The page is at [9]. Someone make these changes! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 162.83.222.141 (talk • contribs) .

I removed part of the Flipper info necause there is no link supporting that it is true.

Sincerely, 70.112.76.158

I've moved the info which people keep on posting into the Rumours and Speculation section, and left a comment under CPU/GPU informing people of such. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 20:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

At this page, there is a section (the one entitled Freedom of Design) talking about Nintendo Revolution supporting indie games. I want to put something about it on this page, but it isn't a rumor or speculation (because Nintendo is the one who said it), but it doesn't really fit in any other category. What should I do with it? -AtionSong 02:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Only thing I found was: Win Drivers forum, and Idle Thumbs One says yes, the other is a 'guess'... --N3twrkM4n 20:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone else thinks that the section is somewhat bloated with too many links? --Snkcube 01:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

At least for me, there are always too many links ;-) Here are the Alexa ranks for the current external links (except PetitionOnline, more later):

• http://www.ign.com 225
• http://www.gamespot.com 228
• http://www.1up.com 3,003
• http://www.nintendo.com 3,074
• http://www.gamasutra.com 12,046
• http://www.gamingsteve.com 91,087
• http://www.revo-europe.com 98,820
• http://www.revolutionreport.com 165,954
• http://www.revogaming.net 294,797
• http://www.cubed3.com 310,088
• http://nintendo-revolution.blogspot.com 465,079
• http://www.dsrevolution.com 480,031
• http://lostgarden.com 579,429
• http://www.seriousgamer007.blogspot.com 704,961
• http://www.twoop.com 814,458
• http://www.nintendorevolutionaries.com 4,344,658

Now, some of the articles have been used into the article, so they should be references, not external link. Others are here just to appear. Although the external links section isn't ruled by web notability, I suggest to wipe out the blogs (*.blogspot.com), as they are not considered good sources, and all with Alexa ranking above 300,000. I suggested at the Kingdom Hearts II talk page a limit of 100,000, because the section was being abused, so that number can be discussed. It is not censorship, just a way to prevent the EL section to grow to insane levels.

Also, I suggest removing the link about PetitionOnline. Currently, it only has 148 signatures, and it was deleted from the main article because of too few signs. I don't believe it is really worth to have as an external link, at least until they have 10,000 signs.

Of course, first we must see which articles have been used as references. Note that some external links are put twice in the section.

Opinions? -- ReyBrujo 03:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with most of the things you've said. The blog and petition links should be removed, since they don't do much good in the external links section. --Snkcube 00:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I cleaned up the list. I removed all blogs as I also feel those are generally not reliable, I removed the petition one, and I removed any that basically repeated the same info as all the other ones; we don't need to read the same basic--sometimes verbatim--info 5 different times. There were even two that went to the same page! I tried to just end up with links to the more reliable sites and a couple that were noteworthy (i.e. the "Nintendo ON" link.) Don't mean to step on anyone's toes here, just the list looked pretty cruddy and I 'boldly' edited, lol. Dannybu2001 22:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem. the section looks much better now. -- ReyBrujo 02:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

So, it looks like some of the blogs are back in the external links. Do they really add enough information that's not already in the other links to be noted? --TheKoG 19:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The lack of HDTV resolution will have no effect on the majority of Nintendo's targeted demographic. As of March 2005, only 10 million households have HDTV. A study by Panasonic concluded that 26% of households surveyed either have or plan on purchasing an HDTV in 2006. If these figures hold true, 3 out of 4 households will only have standard resolution televisions by the time the Revolution is introduced. The majority of Nintendo's market demographic, which includes anyone with a television, will not be able to use HDTV resolution capabilities. From a business standpoint, the amount of customers gained from a low-cost gaming system will far out-weigh the customers lost from having no HD output.

This note IS true and not just speculation, but I don't want to re-add it in the article (thus starting an edit war) without finding a few sources. Can anyone find some references for these notes? --Zeromaru^TC 15:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed it mainly because it felt speculative, unsources and possibly original research. But if you can get sources, I don't think there would be a problem. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 16:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

It looks okay (baring validation of the numbers) up to the last sentence which is POV. I have a HDTV but that doesn't motivate me to purchase an xbox360 or ps3 over a rev. Garglebutt / (talk) 03:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I have added a small phrase to confirm that ATI designed "Hollywood" from scratch, and is not based on Flipper. This comes from an interview RevolutionReport had with ATI's Public Relations Manager for Consumer Products, John Swinimer. Here is the textual paragraph:

Hollywood is a specific design and is in no way reflective of PC technology. Even when the Flipper chips came out, people were asking that question: "Is this a spin-off of something done on the PC?", and the answer is no. It is designed the same as the Flipper was -- from the ground up for a specific console. Totally different sort of architecture from what you might find on the PC. Certainly, there are some underlying values—you know, how you get graphics on the screen—that's there. It's not, for example, like we took a PC design and said 'oh, you know what? If we tweak this and test this, it will work in a console.' [That's] not the case.

ReyBrujo 02:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Do people here think 1080up.org should be even mentioned here at all? As much, I believe it should have a couple of lines explaining they are a bunch of people wanting HD support, but having a whole paragraph about it, I think it is too much. -- ReyBrujo 20:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Considering that it used to have its own page I don't think a few lines is too much to ask. I personally don't care either way, but didn't want to offend those who already thought it deserved a seperate article (which it does not) so I shrunk/merged the page into a blurb. Perhaps some of the specifics about the site could go and just present the essentials, but overall during this time of uncertainty, it is a pretty notable site directly in relation to the HD issue, and I can find no other site doing the same thing. What to do with it once the issue (HD or no HD) is resolved when the Revolution is released, I don't know, but for now it does deserve more than one sentence. Dannybu2001 21:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I've shortened it considerably. But the link is still there.HappyVR 02:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

For example, the console's controller, which can detect its exact location and orientation in 3D space, is a concept never before seen in mainstream video game consoles.

Is this entirely accurate? I seem to recall that the Power Glove for the NES was capable of doing this (badly) as well. Or am I missing an important part of the sentence that the Power Glove doesn't qualify for?

The Power Glove didn't detect its location, it could only detect roll and finger bend. The Power Glove behaved the same no matter how near to the screen you were, while the Revolution controller would be able to work this out and behave accordingly. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 14:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Smurrayinchester is correct. While a number of devices have existed that allow 360 degree movement, and there are even devices that allow for x/y axis movement via moving a mouse (such as the gyration wireless mouse), the Nintendo Revolution controller goes an additional step further. You see, the Revolution adds the in air x/y (up down, left and right) motion of the Gyration-based remote controller and adds a z axis (forward and backward) ability, thus allowing the game to sense a total full three dimensional range of movement. That's what the little sensor things on top of the TV are. There hasn't been any other game controller that allows this level of movement freedom. Daniel Davis 07:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC) (Doom127)

So...if i am playing for example Metroid Prime...i would i move forward!?

>x<ino 08:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think on Prime you'd probably aim your gun with the controller, and use the analogue-stick-nunchuck-thingy to move and walk. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 11:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we change the phrase to something like: For example, the console's controller, which can detect its exact location and orientation in 3D space, is a concept never before seen as the main controller of a mainstream video game consoles. Maybe "main" could be replaced with "standard" or something like that.

• Bingo. Gspawn 23:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

But that wouldn't be accurate. This is a device that has never been done on a console before in any way, shape or form, period, not just in a main or a standard. There literally has *never* been anything that does this in video gaming. Daniel Davis 14:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

While the idea of the controller alone knowing how it's oriented might be something new in video gaming the concept itself has been used multiple times in arcade games. Police 911 and MoCap Boxing by Konami both use sensors around the machine to detect the orientation of the player and boxing gloves respectively. I also recall playing a samurai game whose name I forget which used outside sensors to determine the orientation of the sword to translate your sword swings and blocks onto the screen. So while it's not a new concept, the way Nintendo is pulling it off is most likely the innovation here. --TheKoG 15:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

This is fake. Somebody made it. Where did it come from? I don't know. I want to find out. Any thoughts? --NERD42  EMAIL  TALK  H2G2  UNCYC  NEWS  18:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

There's a link to a detailed article about already in the External links. Dannybu2001 19:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Cool! :) --NERD42  EMAIL  TALK  H2G2  UNCYC  NEWS  19:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

You dumb suker, the first link doesn't work

>x<ino 20:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Xino, don't insult people. To know about the fake video, check here. -- ReyBrujo 21:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Seen the video

Is it the one with the Scope, and Mario at the end!?

That suker just wasted his @ss time, doing that

>x<ino 21:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't give you any right to insult people. Please, be civil. -- ReyBrujo 23:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh i see...maybe YOU need some sweet @ss insult

NERD42 sorry nerd, it seem's sukers like ReyBrujo don't like stuff like this

and for that statement about the fake video, i wasn't refering it to nerd, i was refering it to the suker that made it

>x<ino 18:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

"You dumb suker, the first link doesn't work", just for reference, the way that's worded looks like you were referring directly to Nerd42 not to the videomaker. In the future try something more like, "That dumb suker (or 'sucker').{<<note the period} By the way, the first link didn't work." When you start out with "You dumber suker [comma]", and don't write anything else in between, no one has an option but to assume you're referring to the person who made the links, that being Nerd42. Dannybu2001 21:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It's a major rumor, and just the fact that the Revolution may be able to handle it is an interesting concept. XtremeGamer99 00:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Do we really need to include the "rumor" that Nintendo copied Sony's future version of the eye toy for the PS3, then debunk this rumor in the same paragraph?

This rumor doesn't seem like it's spreading, so we should delete the whole paragraph, since it only adds more ambiguity for those who never heard about the rumor.

It's obvious to me that Nintendo experimented with this kind of controller a long time ago in their R&D labs. A controller that sense 3d position and rotation is not an original idea in itself, it's just a natural way to control 3d games and programs. Nintendo believes that it can replace traditional video-game controllers as a main input device and that's what makes them different.----vl_tone

Well, it DOES provide a resource that shows anyone who needs to know that Nintendo has indeed been experimenting with it since 2001... if you can find a way to put that blurb somewhere else in the article, go right ahead and erase the part about the PS3. Daniel Davis 09:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. To me the paragraph just seems like it is acknowledging partisan nonsense that otherwise shouldn't be noted, but I won't erased it as I'll probably just get reverted. -- Masamunecyrus 14:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention, PC accessories have existed for some time similar to this idea. Usually, they come in the form of a traditional "light gun" for pointing and a control nunchaku of some sort. Moving to the more remote style might seem novel, but the technology is quite old. Gspawn 23:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Removed it. You were right.HappyVR 02:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I had edited the fact that the psp already has this parental lock feature present. Obviosly someone has changed it, they diagree for some reason?. The fact is the psp already has a parental lock feature so there is nothing special that the nintendo revolution has it, so why is there a whole paragraph about it. Also since the psp has this why is there no mention of the fact?

Sorry if altering the article offended anyone.

I can't find any evidence in the article on PlayStation Portable, nor on the PSP website that it has parental controls. Do you have any proof to verify this? smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 11:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I own a psp, i am 100% sure it has parental contro feature on every game and on the psp. I will look for a website to support this.

I'm sure we've all heard the rumor of the Revolution being able to capture the image of the user and create a sprite of it (explaining the patent on bump mapping). Does anybody have a credible source saying something to that effect on this topic?

An_User 14:10, 20 February 2006

That's something already done by the eyetoy and other digital camera devices- If one comes out for the Revolution, there's no reason why it wouldn't happen. However, as of yet, no, there's nothing about that in the pipeline. Daniel Davis 19:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I seem to recall IGN mentioning that Nintendo said that they were getting rid of the 'A' and 'B' monniker for buttons for good on the revolution, and replacing them with different letters. I don't have the time to look for the article, could somebody locate it for me? An_User14:10, 20 February 2006

Not sure what you recalled, but it's not true. A and B are right there and clearly marked. Daniel Davis 19:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

X and Y are also marked as the A and B buttons in one shot of the thing. --HQ 21:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I remember something like the above - except the a/b buttons appeared as x/y in refelction on a shiny white surface - probably a touched up image - can't find a reference though. Perhaps it was just a dream..HappyVR 23:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Got it! There are/were xy buttons - at least specifically on early press releases In the video:

http://media.cube.ign.com/articles/651/651334/vids_1.html The controller has x y buttons that are also labelled a b (see shot of controller on table in vid.)

Plus various shots curiously claiming to show the reflection thing I noted above: http://www.playbomb.com/2005/12/08/109/the-ign-conspiracy-its-real/ http://img226.imageshack.us/my.php?image=object4qw.jpg http://media.cube.ign.com/articles/651/651301/img_3074004.html It's probably all an elaborate marketing ploy. Decide for yourself.HappyVR 00:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

There are also shots out there that "seem" official that show a return to the SNES-style ab-xy cross-arrangement. Specifically, an article on Gamasutra shows them in the images: http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20060215/hong_01.shtml So newer pictures, or other pictures confirming this (not just recycled older images in newer articles) may be needed before editing in the main article to use this picture. These pictures also suggest a doubling of the underside buttons, so that there is both an "L" and an "R" button, for full SNES to-the-key compatability.

I think those are mock ups made by a fan and definately not any real nintendo controller.HappyVR 14:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Added reference to nintendo patent for "emboss bump mapping", also suggest changing this paragraph to :

Nintendo has patents relating to hardware accelerated 'emboss bump mapping'[10]; it is suggested that these patents could relate to hardware for the new Nintendo Revolution.[11]

Copy it in if you want.HappyVR 22:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

O.K. I've done all I can on the rumour section...

I can't connect to spanish site with nintendo official interview to check the force feedback rumour. 

Excepting that all the rumours now have references except those relating to games in developement.HappyVR 23:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Re Rumour section I think the lines:

Recently some patents filed by Nintendo were discovered, indicating that the Revolution may support "emboss bump mapping", a technique used by many game developers to achieve bump mapping effects with less resources.[36]

and

On January 25, 2006, a IGN podcast was revealed having Matt Casamassina making a comment on what he heard, but doesn't know if it's confirmed that in fact the Revolution will be using displacement mapping. [39]

should be combined into one since they refer to the same rumour.HappyVR 15:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC) Also first rumour (above) needs rewording - 'recently' will obviously soon be out of date.HappyVR 16:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: reference 30 and Reference 54

Could someone supply references to the actual article or copy of these articles. The current links seem to connect to ONM wiki page and there is not the correct info there. Specifically a link for this:

When the Official Nintendo Magazine 're-launched', it confirmed that "a new version of Animal Crossing, an update of Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles, the next Super Smash Bros, and an all-new Mario" game were in the making. HappyVR 19:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The price in this section is oscillating between two values - why? As it is in the rumour section a link to the info is needed. I check a link [12] is this it? There are no prices just question marks. Also was this survey commisioned by Nintendo?

Here is the section:

Beta online screens In the March 2006 issue of Game Informer there is a show of some beta online screens, also commenting on the prices of the games from the various systems, ranging from $19.99 to $59.99. It also shows the interface of the online buy and rent screen for the games as well as their home systems.

And one possible reference above. I hope just cutting it is not thought to be too harsh. Feel free to put it back in with the text matching what is written in the article (or your related article)HappyVR 19:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone give any background on these people since the website seems almost totally empty - like they've got nothing? Just some crayon drawings and a mp3 file? Music was nice though :)
Good luck
HappyVR 01:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Change to it "Revolution 12cm DVD format"

My video and audio codec addition was deleted. I don't know why. Gamecube used Bink Video, ADPCM, and Ogg Vorbis. Revolution SDK is simular to Gamecube's SDK using same codecs. If Revolution plays movies than it must have MPEG-2, Dolby Digital AC3 also on board. That's is your proof Revolution will carry these codecs. Renegadeviking 17:36 CST 03/08/06

I moved this to the bottom - that's where new posts seem to be going.
As far as I know the revolution doesn't play movies - not without an add on. As for Bink video, Ogg and Vorbis - there's no reason why any number of encoding schemes might be used. These are software solutions, I think what is needed is the hardware capacity for sound and video e.g. Max sample rate, bit accuracy etc. The rest of the section relates to hardware - I think your infomation maybe should go in a separate section for 'software support(ed)' or similar.HappyVR 00:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

You gotta be joking or just nuts! It plays FMV like every other console. PS3 and X360 decoders are on DVD/BD too, and tech sections of those consoles have decoders listed. Renegadeviking 12:13 CST 03/09/06

I meant it doesn't play DVD movies without an add on.HappyVR 18:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

There are two sections in the article - 'Games in developement' and 'Rumours:Games'. I noticed that both sections contain much duplicated infomation. There is also a page List of Nintendo Revolution games which could cover both. One of the two sections at least definately needs reducing / removing. Has anyone any suggestions what exactly should be done?
My suggestion would be to remove all duplicated info from the 'Rumours:Games' section, and possibly consider moving everything to List of Nintendo Revolution games. Any ideas?HappyVR 16:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd think maybe just remove the 'Games in developement' section and replace it with "See: List of Nintendo Revolution games" and in the 'Rumors' section just remove what's already stated in the list of games article. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 16:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Also the List of Nintendo Revolution games section has formatting for rumoured games as well. (I'd probably split that page into games released (none at present), games in developement, and rumoured games sections.)
However this would leave the Nintendo Revolution page entirely free of games or just with rumoured games in it. A paragraph of text would help as well as the link. Maybe something about SDK's etc?HappyVR 17:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Tidied up both game sections (a bit)HappyVR 20:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Please put links to pages about specific revolution games at List of Nintendo Revolution games
The section 'games in developement' would be better for more general info.
Please don't duplicate info in the sections 'games in developement' and 'Rumours:games'
Perhaps the section 'games in developement' should be renamed 'game development' and have more info on SDK's etc?HappyVR 20:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

A few references are needed for this section.HappyVR 00:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not a miniDVD. It's called a GOD according to IGNcube. Renegadeviking

Have started going through the article doing "cite web" and "cite news" for each of the refs. Should lead to a tidier article. Already done for Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3. --OscarTheCat^talk 23:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi! I wanted to catch you before it's too late - could you give the references names e.g. <ref name="releasedate"> It can really help if the refs. need to be edited later. Personally I prefer the original references (although I know that both Xbox 360 and PS3 articles use the new type) as they seem easier to use.HappyVR 03:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks like you've finished them. Good job.HappyVR 08:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I've popped a short ref name on each of them too, as requested. --OscarTheCat^talk 09:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we call the Sixth Generation the Disc Age. All the consoles in the generation were the first to have games on discs. H-BOMB 15:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe this discussion should be on the History of video game consoles (sixth generation) article. This pretty much has nothing to do with the Nintendo Revolution article. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 15:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Being Moved H-BOMB 20:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)