Slashdot Mirror


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."'"

8 of 589 comments (clear)

  1. On the other hand... by jagripino · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... we all couldn't imagine a videogame market without a SEGA home console and, who could have seen it before, releasing games for Sony and Nintendo consoles!

    This is not intended as flamebait for the SEGA lovers, since I was a fervent DC evangelist since the day it was released in Japan.

    So, a market without Nintendo hardware is possible, just as a market without SEGA hardware is now. We still get their great games, but not on their hardware.

  2. That is why I WOULDN'T want to buy a Nintendo. by Viewsonic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The reason Nintendo fans buy their systems is for the Mario, Metroid, Zelda, Pokemon type games. These are just geared for all ages. Nintendo tries to capture the largest market and make truely enjoyable products for ALL gamers. I would hate to see big bouncing breast volleyball games with medicore ratings instead of a damn good Mario game.

  3. Re:Obsolete hardware by Pope · · Score: 5, Insightful
    This replacement^H^H^H err... upgrade cycle is the reason I have totally lost interest in console gaming.

    Uh, dude, console lifecycles have always been 4 to 5 YEARS. That's a lot of time to play with them.

    --
    It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
  4. Actually, in some ways, it's worse... by Pii · · Score: 5, Insightful
    It's an odd viewpoint for me, but in at least one way, this competition is actually worse for consumers.

    Title exclusivity sucks ass. I hate that each of these consoles has at least one extremely compelling title that is available only on that console.

    It means having to have multiple consoles in order to play the games that you want to play... My house now has all three current generation consoles (Got my son a PS2 Christmas of last year, picked up an Xbox for myself last summer, and ended up getting a Gamecube this year at the after Christmas sales).

    At least I'm covered when a new game comes out, but even then I'm faced with difficult decisions. When we want a game that's available for more than one platform, we have to decide which version to get, resigned to the knowledge that we're gonna be committed to playing said game at one of three locations (The Home Theater, the kids' playroom, or my son's bedroom).

    It makes PC gaming look so much more attractive than consoles, knowing that I had software portability; that one title could be played on any of the PCs.

    I also have to concede that First person shooters suck on consoles. I long for the Keyboard and Mouse combo whenever I play Halo. I'll never be half as good at it as I am at Quake.

    I also have to take issue with your assertion about Better Prices. It may be valid for the hardware (PS2 and Xbox for $200, Gamecube for $150), but it's completely invalid for the game titles themselves. A new game costs $50 (at a retail store), regardless of the console you're buying it for. I have seen no indication that games for Platform X are any less expensive than they are for Platforms Y or Z.

    I wish there was a single platform specification, with multiple hardware vendors building compatible systems, all capable of running the same software. Then you'd have real choices.

    (Oh yeah, I guess there is... They call them PCs)

    --
    For those that would die defending it, Freedom
    has a sweet taste that the protected will never know.
    1. Re:Actually, in some ways, it's worse... by RESPAWN · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I wish there was a single platform specification, with multiple hardware vendors building compatible systems, all capable of running the same software. Then you'd have real choices.



      They tried that. It was called the 3DO, and it failed miserably. There were even plans in the works for a 3DO add-in card for PCs. What it basically ammounts to is that exclusivity is what drives up profits. The big three make most of their profits from game liscensing on their console. I'm not going to get into the profit or no-profit on hardware debate because that is one topic that is so rife with misinformation that such arguments usually go nowhere. The simple truth is that the real profit lies in liscensing fees accrued from developers developing on a particular console.


      Which console a particular game is developed for or if a game is developed for all consoles depends on a number of factors, but all the hardware vendors try to get exclusive rights to that really big, hit game. In turn, gamers will buy a console based on that really big hit game. Exclusive use of that one game title, will generate a whole slew of profits from the liscensing fees paid from other games on that console. Not to mention profits from the various peripherals that gamers must purchase. Microsoft understood that when they bought Bungie and therefore Halo. Sony understood that when they enticed Rockstar into developing the Grand Theft Auto series exclusively for their systems. Nintendo simply has a wide range of exclusive character brands that keep loyal gamers coming back. The exclusive games on closed consoles economy simply works, and that's all there is to it. Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft aren't necessarily making the big bucks from the games developed in house, at least not in comparison to the profits had from the whole of games developed for their consoles. Instead, they make the money off the wide range of games that were liscensed for release on a particular console, that were purchased after that gamer bought his XBox just to play Halo.


      We'll never see an open console standard, and if we do I would be willing to bet that the big three would still find ways to add exclusive features to their consoles that will only work with exclusive games. Much like the SQL standard and the many extensions written by Oracle, Microsoft and the like. The goal is to snag customers and make them loyal. You've got to milk them for all that they've got.

      --

      If Murphy's Law can go wrong, it will.

  5. GameCube: Not just for kids... by Maul · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I see a LOT of complaints that Nintendo makes "kiddy", that they don't make anything an 18-30 year old gamer would want to play, etc., etc.

    The complaints obviously don't come from anyone who has actually played a GameCube game for an extended period of time. Nintendo has done an excellent job appealing to both young kids and older GAMERS, IMO.

    All of Nintendo's "big" GameCube games are extremely fun to play. Cartoonish characters
    appeal to younger players, but it is the solid, fun games that have kept Nintendo fans loyal since the 80s.

    Take SSB: Melee, for example. It is filled with characters kids will like based on appearance. Mario, Luigi, Pikachu, Yoshi, etc. It is also extremely fun, but has tons of retro Nintendo goodness that only an older gamer will appreciate (I doubt an 8-Year old understands who the "Ice Climbers" are).

    Animal Crossing is yet another game that looks like it is "for kids" at first glance, but delivers some interesting, innovative gaming as well as the ability to play old NES games... a feature that was obviously designed for older fans.

    And then, there is Metroid Prime, which is probably the best console game released within the last two years.

    Most of the GC games can be enjoyed by anyone. As more people who grew up with the original NES start to have children, Nintendo might actually be able to reclaim the top spot. Why? Because parents will be able to purchase their family a console that they can enjoy for the retro-ness, and their kids can also enjoy.

    Honestly, my PS2 got more use in 2002 as a DVD player and a PS1. I haven't been impressed with too many games that have come out in 2002 for it. On the other hand, the my Cube has been getting a lot of play time, and will continue to do so since Link and I will have some serious princess rescuing to do come Spring.

    What Nintendo HAS NOT done well is appealed to casual idiot who thinks that having sex with a hooker and then running her over to get your money back is the epitomy of good, "mature," gameplay. This is a good thing.

    --

    "You spoony bard!" -Tellah

  6. Re:Great games... if only they were for PS2 by blincoln · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If all else was equal, would there be a good reason to get a GameCube over a PS2 or XBox?

    The only legitimate reason to buy any console is because it has games you want to play, and can't play elsewhere.

    I'm going to snag a Gamecube (in addition to my PS2 and XBox) because of Metroid Prime and Eternal Darkness, not because it can process 76.87 jiggawatts per cubic tachyon pulse.

    --
    "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
  7. Re:Obsolete hardware by Blimey85 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    If you are intelligent enough to use a computer, use it as your gaming platform too. After all, it is better with regards to price/performance

    Your kidding right?

    I have a total investment in my PS2 and games of around $1200. I have an investment in my computer of around $4000. How is that better price to performance? There are a lot of better games available for my PS2 than there are for my computer. They also work right out of the box. I don't have to mess with Windows. I dont' have to hunt down new drivers. I don't have to install the latest patches. I just pop in the cd/dvd, fire up the console, and play the damn game. That is how gaming should be. I also get to play from the comfort of my couch.

    Also, how often do you upgrade your computer? Do you still have the same computer you had 5 years ago and does it play the latest games? Probably not. Just like I upgrade my computer system every couple of years, I don't want to be using the same gaming hardware for the next 20 years. The NES was great but it had it's day. The same with all of the other consoles that came and went. I still have a ton of PS1 games that I play but I don't play them as much as the newer PS2 games because most of the PS2 games are better. They have better graphics, better sound, etc. The technology has advanced and to utilize the newer technology, you need newer hardware.

    It's much more expensive to upgrade a computer than it is to buy a new console. How much is a "nice" graphics card these days? You can spend more on just a graphics card than on a console and still have a lot of other parts to buy, and the first computer you purchase will cost much more because you have nothing to start with and to compare price to performance, you need a decent gaming computer, not the Wally-World special.

    --
    How is it that one careless match can start a forest fire, but it takes a whole box to start a campfire?