Nintendo Confirms New Console In 2005

GweeDo writes "It is official. Nintendo will be releasing their next console right along side Sony's PS3 in 2005. The news was released here by cube.ign.com. They also went on to say that Retro Studies is working on a Prequel to Metroid Prime. The best quote to all you people that said Nintendo was leaving the console market is this: 'Iwata emphasized Nintendo's plans to stick in the console industry by saying, "When we withdraw from the home game console, that's when we withdraw from the video game business."'"

Comments

OT: Atari

[zwoelfk]

The Atari name and many properties are owned by Infogrames.

From the infogrames corporate faq:

Q: Through its acquisition of Hasbro Interactive in 2001, Infogrames Entertainment became the owner of the Atari brand. What plans do you have for the Atari brand?


A: Atari is perhaps the most illustrious name in the interactive game industry and we are thrilled to have it as part of the Infogrames family. We want to be true to the innovation that marked Atari's launch 20 years ago. With that in mind, we are re-inventing Atari for a new generation. Our inaugural titles, Splashdown, MXRider and Transworld Surf, all of which will launch in November 2001, capture the qualities we believe will define the re-invented Atari. They are innovative, unique, exhilarating, breakthrough, and genre defining games. You can expect to see a great deal more from us regarding Atari in the months ahead.

Re:the significance of being a first mover....

[tuffy]

during the genesis/snes wars, the first mover advantage most defn. helped sega when the technologically super snes arrived. the installed base invalidated the technical differences to a degree, and sega did pretty well for themselves.

Sega's biggest advantage was having a faster CPU than the SNES, which helped a lot for sports titles (which required lots of sprites, but not necessarily lots of color or excellent sound). Still, the two systems were similar enough that both consoles shared the US market pretty much equally.

during the saturn/ps1 wars, sega again had first mover advantage. but they negated that advantage by 1) coming out at too high a price point (i think $300) and 2) missing the boat w.r.t 3D gaming - the saturn just couldn't handle it.

$400, actually, compared to the PSX's $300 (which came out a few months later). The Saturn was a monster at handling 2D graphics, and did quite well in Japan, but developing 3D graphics was harder. And, since developing was easier for the PSX in general, that's where all the big popular US titles went.

during the latest dreamcast/ps2 wars, sega again had first mover advantage, and the DC did do well initially. i think what screwed it was that ps2 was LIGHT YEARS ahead of DC tech-wise - the first-mover advantage was simply negated this time (as opposed to the smaller difference of degree between the genesis and snes).

"LIGHT YEARS" is an exaggeration. The DC isn't as powerful as the PS2 (by virtue of coming out much sooner), but the level of power is certainly comparable; one should be able to port a title to either without great loss (and the DC is much easier to develop for, also). The problem is, when Sega's multi-millionaire financier died, the company folded its console business rather than trying to really compete. Whether the DC could've made a go of things is debatable, since support dried up soon after Sega discontinued the hardware.

In general, the most "powerful" console is rarely the most popular one (the X-Box is likely to continue that trend). But coming very late to market with only marginally better hardware hasn't helped Nintendo's market share over the years. Still, unlike Sega and Microsoft who sold consoles as a loss, Nintendo profits on each one sold and should have little trouble staying in the business for as long as they want to.

Re:Pretty gutzy move.

[gpinzone]

It's got nothing to do with raw CPU power (regardless of the clock speed). Rather than rehash it all, read this.

Re:the significance of being a first mover....

[gpinzone]

i think what screwed it was that ps2 was LIGHT YEARS ahead of DC tech-wise - the first-mover advantage was simply negated this time

Hell no! The PS2 was NOT light years ahead of the Dreamcast. The problem with the Dreamcast were its controllers and the lack of software for it. What helped kill sales for Sega was the PROMISE by Sony that the PS2 would be light-years ahead of the Dreamcast. So people hung onto their PS1s and waited before shelling out any cash for the Dreamcast since the PS2 was right around the corner. When the PS2 came out, it was marginally better than the Dreamcast, but by then it was too late.

Re:Difference is branding

[Keith Russell]

Sega tried, and Sonic was a good series, but it just never became synonymous with Sega the way Mario did with Nintendo.

Actually, Sonic was synonymous with Sega. The problem was that Sonic was Sega's only franchise. Let's just look at the NES/Master System and SuperNES/Genesis eras. Nintendo had Mario, Zelda, and Metroid. Sega had Sonic. That's it. Now step forward to the N64/Saturn days. Sega had a multiple-month head start on Nintendo, but Saturn didn't have a Sonic title at launch. Their only franchise, and it wasn't ready until after N64 came out, with a Mario title at launch. That was Sega's Waterloo. They didn't make the same mistake with Dreamcast and Sonic Adventure, but it was too little, too late. The fanboys were gone. Shame. I loved those early Dreamcast commercials. :-)

I have to wonder if GameCube's slow start has the same root cause: No franchise at launch? Luigi's Mansion didn't have the Mario mystique, and Super Smash Bros. Melee, fun as it is, doesn't work because you're just throwing a bunch of franchise characters out of their elements and into a fighter. Unlike Sega, however, Nintendo can get by on reputation. Mario is a given on any Nintendo console. We knew Zelda was coming from the demo reels. Announcing the return of Metroid created plenty of buzz. Maybe things will pick up now that they've arrived (or are on the horizon, in Zelda's case).

Look at it this way: Would XBox 2 stand a chance if Halo 3 was 6 months late? Heck, will the current XBox stand a chance if Halo 2 is 6 months late?