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.