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."'"
I can't picture a gaming market without Nintendo. Mario, Zelda, Metroid... all classics. I got the cube when Metroid came out, and I'm glad I did .. it is superior to the PS/2 in many ways.
I just wish the plethura of games that PS/2 and XBox compete with also appear on the cube (and further systems).
--------
Free your mind.
but Nintendo beware! Bill's XBox will be coming into the second generation - and we all know by the third generation it will suck less. A lot less.
It's Christmas everyday with BitTorrent.
I can't imagine the shit that goes down over in Sony and Nintendo's dumpsters. The competition between the two companies is so fierce, I wouldn't be suprised if "dumpster diving" was a promotion-worthy pasttime!
Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate. Ex-O'Reilly/MIT employee, now a full-time Google employee.
While some may label them bastards for their hard-nosed stance on emulation (but with them releasing so many great remakes for the GBA, can you blame them?) and arrogance, the fact is that, compared to the Everything-Box multimedia behemoths of Sony and MS, this is the equivalent of a mom-and-pop general store that's been around for generations vowing to stick it out against the Wal-Mart and the Target raking it in on either side.
I can't believe this! I JUST bought a GameCube, and now its going to be obsolete in just 2.5 years! Argh! Why do these development companies have to keep developing!!!
nintendo is a juggernaut. they have a lock on some of the most lucrative franchises in the gaming industry (zelda, pokmon, metroid, etc), so why would anyone scoff and say they would not develop another console to compete? playstation fanboi trolls?
"Powers. I have them."
I hope for their sake they have a realistic plan for designing the hardware and consider it a contender to go head-to-head against Sony. The GameCube is great, but it's not nearly as good (from a hardware standpoint) than the X-Box or what's in store for the PS3. Either way, they MUST be planning on making a PROFIT from the console. Why else would they want to go through the trouble of spending mucho dollars of R&D? Anyone who keeps the myth of "platform makers losing money on the hardware" can finally shut the hell up!
Nintendo of Japan president Satoru Iwata says...
...
consumers today apparently don't want to sit in front of the television to play games for hours and hours.
Really? Why has Sony sold about 8 billion* PS2's?
However, it is good to see Nintendo vowing not to bow out... (And to see them planning a release around the same time as the other boxes.) Looks like they learned their lesson (show up late, get no pie.)
*estimated
... 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.
For me this raises a few questions. Will it be backwards compatiable with the Gamecube much like the PS2 is with the PSX. This helped the PS2 in its first year a lot. It gave it a huge library of games to let you play while you waited for more PS2 specific titles to come. Then their is the question of Gameboy Advance integration/connection. Nintendo has pushed the link technology alot and is only starting to push it more (GBPLayer in May). What will see from them that way? Also, will we see a more advanced GB soon after that desinged to work wonders with the new console? Who knows. It is all speculation right now, but it will be interesting to see.
Unstable Apps: Our Android Apps Don't Suck
i've been following the video game industry for some time now, and it is interesting to evaluate the advantage of being a 'first mover'.
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.
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 $300) and 2) missing the boat w.r.t 3D gaming - the saturn just couldn't handle it.
during the latest dreamcast/ps2 wars, sega again had first mover advantage, and the DC did do well initially. i think what screwed it was that ps2 was LIGHT YEARS ahead of DC tech-wise - the first-mover advantage was simply negated this time (as opposed to the smaller difference of degree between the genesis and snes).
nintendo, which has traditionally always had late console releases, now realizes that first mover is vitally important. hence the latest announcement. the GC just came too late - the PS2 is a powerful box with TOO MUCH of a installed base. lets hope that their latest technology is on par with ps3 and xbox2 so they can remain competitive for the long haul.
smd4985
What the heck is going on with Atari these days? Did another company purchase the name, and start produceing games with their name? Or did the original company manage to survive some how?
:)
Is it possible they are just a division of a parent company now, being used to get the Famous name on some games once again? And we will never see more than such? Or are they an independant company, that may once again become a player in the console gameing industry?
To me the current stats us Console games is going the way of the buffalo. The freedom and variety of console gameing is being cut down by all these M$ purchases. I had a buddy of mine say, "Well, that is going to suck, who the hell wants to play the same damn game with a different name?" Is this going to cut down on the variety of new games? The Quality? The number? Price? How about the other console platforms? I am curious what other slashdotters think.
Ohh ya, I am happy with my original NES. You should see the thing hooked up to my 52" big screen and suround sound.
- Ice_Hole
"I couldn't give him (Bill Gates) advice in business and he couldn't give me advice in technology." Linus Torvalds
In February of 2001, Sega announced that they would focus solely on making games for other systems.
"Indeed, Sega has fallen, they are down, posting quarterly losses in the hundreds of thousands of dollars for the fourth time in a row, but they are not out. In fact, Sega's future appears to be a bright one as the company is now officially third party. From now on, Sega will only be making games for other companies' systems."
Read the entire article here.
Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate. Ex-O'Reilly/MIT employee, now a full-time Google employee.
It's a seuqel that is planned, which makes sense as the game's ending (at least at 100%) leaves open the possibility. Considering that Prime takes place almost immedeately after the first Metroid, I don't see how it could easily spawn a prequel.
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
For the next 15 or so years Nintendo will have an attribute that MS and Sony cannot completely kill. I grew up playing Nintendo systems. I loved playing Mario and Zelda and Metroid games. I absolutely loved it, and while I don't even own any of the current generation gaming systems, I still feel a flutter of nostalgia when I look at Nintendo products. Some part of me wants to support the company that brought me so much joy as a kid. And I can still play those same characters in new, awesome adventures. As long as Nintendo continues to develop products that are not significantly worse than the competition, I believe that their loyal consumer base (some loyalty to the company, some loyalty to the trademark characters) will keep them afloat for at least a few more generations of systems.
Although, I would like to hear that Nintendo is doing something revolutionary, instead of the same tired cartridge-based technology improvements.
Man, I can't believe someone would consider Nintendo a mom and pop operation. That's just so ridiculous. Listen, just because a company isn't Microsoft, that doesn't make them "good." Do a little bit of research before you spout off.
I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
So, is this the "Megaton" announcement which I was getting so excited about a while back, or are we still waiting for that one?
This kind of comment really dissapoints me, personally. To see a perfectly successful game producer limit themselves to consoles, especially when then line between computers and consoles grows increasingly vauge, seems counter-productive these days.
We already know that the profit (if any) from the consoles themselves pales in comparison to the licensing fees they get from other companies using their patented hardware. Nintendo makes alot of excellent games. What do you really think of when you think of Nintendo's greatest successes? It's not any of the hardware, it's the software, the names we know like Mario, Metroid, and Zelda. Leaving the console business doesn't mean leaving these household names behind, as Sega has found out, accidentally as it may be.
No news from the gaming industry would please me more then to see Nintendo in the PC gaming business. Even my mom "gets" the idea that having excellent games distributed exclusively for various $200 pieces of hardware doesn't make sense.
"You know, Hobbes, some days even my lucky rocketship underpants don't help" -- Calvin
I wonder if Nintendo will continue to chase after the young gamer market. The biggest slam I hear from people about the 'cube is that it's all kids stuff. Having an 8 year old, I don't mind seeing all the titles out that are kid friendly... but with the new embrace of the older male market with games like GTA and the like, I'm wondering if Nintendo will forsake its past and try and get a chunk of the 18-30 market.
'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."'"
"Read my lips, no new taxes" - George Bush
"Let them eat cake" - Marie Antionette
"No one will ever need more than 16KB of RAM" - Bill Gates
Since he's referring to that more people want to play mobile GBA games rather than sit at a console in front of a TV. Sales wise, the Gameboys have outsold even the Sony behemoth(s). Meaning, there are more portable game players in the world than console gamers... Sort of.
I must admit I'm a little surprised by this. Nintendo is notorious for hating to develop new consoles; they prefer to rake in the profits through licensing rather than actually spend all that money on R&D.
Their usual strategy is to wait until their competitor is about to launch their new console, then announce that they (Nintendo) are coming out with one too. That way they can cut into the potential market for their competitor's console, as a sizeable chunk of gamers (especially the younger ones with a lot less disposable income) decide to wait for the Nintendo offering.
From the infogrames corporate faq:
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.
From the perspective of a casual gamer (I know crap about the industry) - I always thought Sega dropped the ball with Dreamcast. I owned the Dreamcast, then the PS2. I was never really impressed with PS2. The Dreamcast produced such great looking titles, whereas the PS2 titles are all mediocre grainy games (with some exceptions, of course). I would have loved to stuck with Dreamcast, but I always percieved that Sega dropped support plus the brand recognition and hype factor of the ps2 made it much "bigger" than it really was. I view the failure of the Dreamcast not on technical merits, but rather, marketing ones.
Just my take from the outside.
Retro Studies is working on a Prequel to Metroid Prime
That's such a fitting name for a studio working on a Nintendo game... but actually it's Retro Studios. =)
Tom the Sigless
Well, not really, but we can already guess at what their first patch of games will be:
Come on Nintendo, surprise me and make the flagship games of your next console ORIGINAL and nnot aimed at 8 year olds... GC has excellent games while still a kiddy image... Shame.
Hate me!
Ok, I'm getting a little tired of the whole "kids' console" image that people are trying to pin on Nintendo. EVERY system has little kid games. Young children are a large part of the market and a company would have to be stupid not to have games for that demographic.
Go to the store and look at the case of Game Cube games. Yes, you'll see little kid games like Mario Sunshine and Kirby Eats More Stuff (or something like that). But you'll also notice a selection of more "mature" games such as Resident Evil Zero, Mortal Kombat, and Ass Raping Pedophile Warriors (or something like that).
If you chose to buy another console then that's fine. Buy what you want, play it, be happy. But don't make up crap about its competitors in an attempt to further justify your purchase when no justification is necessary.
http://publicvoidlife.blogspot.com
In some ways, backwards compatibility hurt the PS2. I remember reading in its first year that Sony was having trouble convincing developers to make PS2 games instead of PSX games. And the developers had good reasons:
- proven development tools for the PSX
- PSX had a huuuuuge market share compared to the PS2, even after several months
- writing a game for the PSX meant the PS2 market was open to the game, but not vice versa
Now, obviously the first reason applies to any new console, but given the general crappiness of the PS2's development tools (by every account I ever read they were shoddy as hell -- hopefully Sony paid attention and will do better on that score with the PS3) developers were leary of committing time to learning the new tools and learning the ins and outs of the new hardware given that with no new effort they could make a PSX game that'd work on 25 million units.What you ended up with was a whole whack-load of developers who teetered on the fence for the first year of the PS2 trying to figure out when the best time was to jump on the bandwagon. Without the the backwards compatibility, certainly some of those developers would have jumped to the PS2 earlier. Okay, so Sony wasn't exactly hurting for games, but you have to wonder what some of those games from the end of the PSX era might have looked like a on a console that was truly capable of 3D rendering! :)
Wood Shavings!
- Godai
Because Nintendo has gone on the record to say they design games for ALL ages. Which is true, who DOESNT want to play a totally fun Mario game? What about Resident Evil 0, or Eternal Darkness with are mature games? Right now the Gamecube has just as many all-ages games as they do mature-ages games. You just need open your mind a bit and play what you think is FUN, and not limit yourself to what other nonesensical JUNK other people say.
...they'll suceed, IMO.
First, Nintendo needs to learn a lesson from its portable market. Biggest reason why I'll get a GBA SP? OR why everyone got GBAs to begin with? *Backwards compatibility*
Sony has it with PS2. It made getting a PS2 much more lucrative than a GC, since I could finally play the FF games, as well as GTA series.
Nintendo should maintain bacwards compat. for Gamecube games, and move up to full sized discs like the PS2 for better soundtracks and even more graphics goodies. I'm not a tech genius but I imagine the system can differentiate between big and small legacy discs...if my $5 cdrom drive can read those funny shaped business card discs, Nintendo should be able to accomplish this.
So...bigger discs for more goodies, and backwards compatibility with Gamecube. Go Nintendo.
Oh, more adult targetted games wouldnt hurt. And maybe online play...but my first two points are the biggies.
http://thechubbyferret.net - Ferret pictures and informative links.
I think I am going to hold out til 2016 to buy a new gaming console.
::.. check out some Cell Phone Reviews
Yeah, it would be great if they stopped being so innovative and started releasing all the mediocre crap that their competitors are selling. Why does everyone think that just because a game doesn't involve car jacking and murder that it's a kids game? It seems pretty apparent that there are people who enjoy what Nintendo has to offer, and we're not all kids. They do appeal to the younger gamers, which is great, since nobody else seems to be willing to, but that's not their only market. If they're not selling games you want, buy a PS2.
do not read this line twice.
Don't throw away those Cubes yet, kiddies. Nintendo, Sony, et al are notorious for spreading rumors of new consoles "just around the corner," then releasing them years later when the market is finally ready. Remember how many extra years we had to wait for "project reality?" or the Playstation? If you go by the original announcements, the PS3 and XBox2 should already be out by now.
No, what is more likely is that Nintendo is countering Sony's mindshare ploy with a mindshare ploy of their own. This is the first real year for the Game Cube, and by my calculations that means that unless they fail miserably in the market, Nintendo won't release a new system until 2008. Nintendo knows this business, and they know that to be successful you have to make the majority of people wait just a little bit for a new system. The launch of a new system is a huge financial burden... why would they go running in to do that when they are so profitable at number 2?
This Sig is a mnemonic device designed to allow you to recognize this author in the future.
I suspect you say that with your tongue in cheek, but i would just like to ask anyway: All those of you who are miffed about the fact your brand-new gamecube will be obsolete in two and a half years:
Do you get as annoyed about being coerced into spending $150-$200 every two or so years for an incrementally improved version of your operating system that doesn't really add much, as you do about being coerced into spending $150-$200 every three or so years for a completely new and improved game console?
Just curious.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
What's interesting is that this is probably why the Gameboy is still around today (in Advance form). Even today, you can still play the first-generation gameboy games, and there is no real competition in the handheld market.
Makes me wonder if backward compatability will continue to be a trend in the next console wave.
--paul
-- Every time you kill a kitten, God masturbates.
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.
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
I like the software but not the hardware... but only because I already have a PS2. I'm getting very tired of these "For this particular console only" games. Each console has its merits and I chose PS2 because I had a PS1 that I loved, and I still had a lot of PS1 games. Now that I have a PS2, I don't want to buy an XBox or a GameCube. I already have a great console, why should I have to buy 2 more so that I can play all of the games that are out?
Further, where am I going to put two more consoles and how am I going to hook it all together? I have two consoles plugged in now (N64 is the other) and I don't have much free space in my gaming table (a coffee table with shelves in the front where I put my consoles and all the games, game mags, game books, etc.
Why can't we have one console to rule them all?
Seriously though, I think I would be more likely to pay more for a console that could play games from 2 of the big 3 than buying two consoles. If there was a PS2 that was licensed and able to also play GameCube games, or XBox games, at least it would help with my space issue. As it is, I have to consider the extra cost of another console, new controllers and other accessories, and then find a place to stick it.
Anyway, back to my original reason for posting... I like Nintendo games. They have some great games available for their console but I would prefer if they were to follow Sega and stop making hardware. As it is, they aren't getting much money from me (I buy N64 games still - there were some good games for that system) but if they were to release their games for PS2, I would buy a lot of them. I don't know what kind of profits they make on their hardware, or how that would be affected if they were to license their games for PS2, but I think overall they would sell more games because there are more PS2's in the world than GameCubes... and if they did a tri-license and included XBox, they would do even better... but one has to wonder how many consoles they would sell if their games ran on PS2 and XBox. I bet the hardware numbers would go in the shitter real quick.
Maybe you can clear this up for me: What are the advantages (real world, not just statistical) of the GameCube? If all else was equal, would there be a good reason to get a GameCube over a PS2 or XBox?
How is it that one careless match can start a forest fire, but it takes a whole box to start a campfire?
It's been pointed out in this thread that Nintendo was basically the Microsoft of the game industry in the late 1980's (90%+ of the industry, antitrust lawsuits - ring a bell). The difference is that everyone still liked them (how could we not - Mario! Zelda!)
Since then Nintendo has fallen from the king of the hill, partly due to the fact that the hill is so much bigger nowadays, but also due to some bad decisions. The Genesis came out before the SNES and Nintendo played catchup until right before the end (Donkey Kong Country pulled them slightly ahead of Sega's numbers, but Sega was still quite the contender). Then with the Nintendo 64, Nintendo pretty much got cocky. I loved the N64 but lots of the decisions they made (cartridges, no Metroid, etc.) were bad. Plus they were doing things like relying on Pokemon, franchises and the children's market. It was as if they didn't realize a portion of their target audience were now grownups
Now we have the new Nintendo. The old Nintendo stayed with a moribund format, the new Nintendo is DVD-based (though 3" DVD's). The old Nintendo wouldn't let a Metroid game be made, the new Nintendo released two last year. The old Nintendo would have had only one good game at launch, and a Mario one at that - the new Nintendo had lots of good games, none of which were Mario, and the Luigi game they did was completely non-traditional. The old (old) Nintendo would never have let a dark, violent game on their console, the new Nintendo scored the exclusives on the Resident Evil franchise. The old Nintendo would forget its roots, the new Nintendo rerelases old NES games in the form of a pack of cards. For that matter, only Nintendo would have thought of that. The old Nintendo would have swamped its console with Pokemon - the new Nintendo has yet to.
The old Nintendo would just tell its customers what they want, the new Nintendo asks its customers what they think of Xbox live.
Imagine what Microsoft would be like if, in ten years, they fell from the top of the heap and had to fight for customers all of a sudden.
I'm a longtime admitted Nintendo fanboy and it's becoming easier to do so.
Schnapple
Nintendo's games are golden. They are the games I go to over and over when I want to just gel out and have fun. When I think back over the years to the games I have the best memories of, most of them were made by Nintendo. Zelda (all of them), Metroid (all of them), Super Mario Bros (again, all of them), Mario Kart, Pikmin, etc... Not that other people haven't made good games (Konami, Capcom... those were the good old days), but for games that I could stick in the console, fire up and enjoy, Nintendo was the best.
One other thing: has anyone noticed how quickly Nintendo's Gamecube games start? (Here, I mean specifically the ones made by Nintendo.) I can usually have the power on and be playing in the amount of time it would take to get past the first developer's logo on a PS2 game.
Anyway, all that to say this. I look forward to a new console by Nintendo, but whether they made a new console or not, I look forward mostly, to their games.
I went dormant for 2 years and played no games, at all. I bought a Gamecube when Starfox(moan) came out a few moths ago, and got Metroid(yippy!) for holidays. I also bought the PS2 recently for DVD/Gaming. The Gamecube has better sound and graphics. The realtime hair in Starfox had me staring at the title screen for a few minutes the first time.
Nintendo pushes the edge of gaming while others walk the edge. Nintendo games have always set the bar for everyone else. 2 words...Shigeru Miyamoto.
I saw an Xbox once at my cousin's. Couldn't get over the size of it. Good graphics...shitty console IMHO.
Sorry, but the parent here is overrated and in error by a long shot.
Yes it is quite illegal for you and I to download/copy the games and play them on an emulator. Why? We don't own the rights to say Super Mario Bros or the NES hardware. Hense any emulation done outside Nintendo is probably illegal.
Oh wait...Nintendo DOES own the rights to the (S)NES and all those games they made! They can do ANYTHING they want with those properties. If they want to emulate a NES on the GameCube and feed it the Metroid ROM, perfectly legal.
They'll tell us that emulation is illegal cause for us, it is. They on the other hand can do whatever the hell they want with their games.
Hypocritical.....pthhh
Um, yeah, like more Spyro, Crash Bandicoot 6, Ratchet, Clank, Jak and Daxter Vexx and Ty the Tasmanian whatever, Grand Theft Auto, and Final Fantasy games on PS2?
No judgement on the XBox, as it's only had one generation, but expect Halo to keep going as well.
Mind you, many of the games I mentioned are good, but please understand that the only "variety" you see is mostly superficial. Gameplay styles remain similar across all 3 platforms.
Don't knock fun games with old characters, because the alternative is crap games with new characters.
Becuase Sony doesn't seem to care much about their online gaming product. Their support is terrible. My Sony Network adapter worked sporadically, and I had to deal with inept customer service people via email to try and figure out whether or not it was a faulty adapter or a router setting that was keeping things from working properly.
Xbox Live on the other hand works much more efficiently, and becuase M$ is charging for it, they actually want to help with support. Sony has nothing to gain if I play SOCOM or Twisted Metal Online. Their business model is all wrong.
So why do I own a Gamecube and an Xbox? Simple. The common game list is much smaller than Xbox and PS2. Gamecube has "fun" games like Animal Crossing and Zelda that are somewhat cartoony, and not all blood and guts. They also have Metroid Prime which is incredible, and their broadband adapter got me setup with Phantasy Star online in seconds with ZERO CONFIGURATION.
It asked if I wanted to connect via the broadband adapter, I said yes, and then I was connected. No DHCP, IP numbers, or anything.
Xbox and PS2 seem to be almost mirror images of one another in terms of game selections. Large amounts of common games, and smaller amounts of exclusives. PS2 has the Grand Theft Auto series, which I grew tired of, and Xbox has some of its own exclusives, like Morrowind. Regardless, I think one of the most important features of the xbox will be its increasing use of its harddrive and the Live service to update content. New Levels, new types of characters. Keeps games fresh.
Well this post has gone on far enough. Conclusion: Xbox over PS2 for reasons stated, Gamecube in addition, to suppliment the blood and guts games with a serving of happy little cartoons.
Release dates do play a big part in who buys what system, but Nintendo doesn't sound like it's accounting for why or how their consumers make decisions to pick a console! Honestly if they had released the GameCube closer to the unveiling of the Playstation 2, how many more sales would they have generated? How many additional impulsive buys would that have accounted for? How many people would still buy the Playstation 2 for GTA?
The biggest question on the minds of my friends back in '95 was, "Do I buy a Sega Saturn now, wait for Sony's first console system, or preorder an N64?"
My buddies started to fall in to three distinct camps. First there were the impatient gamers that wanted to satisfy a fix right now! Naturally they snatched up the Saturn and voiced no regrets. The next bunch were the tech savvy spec hunting gamers that assumed the market would follow whichever system had the best hardware (please don't remind me of the 3DO). Even after the Playstation was released, and it was becoming obvious that Nintendo was going to take a lot longer to ship, there were still countless people that I knew that stuck with the philosophy that if Nintendo was taking it's time to do things right it was probably worth it to wait for their system(even if it meant waiting another year)! Last, but not least, there's the slow-to-let-go, trend-following fan-boys-and-girls that were too leary to fork over hundreds of dollars to a company that was just getting it's feet wet in the game biz. As would be expected the last bunch became product loyalists, either standing devoutely behind Nintendo and their SNES's or advocating the virtues of buying the already-here Sega Saturn system. To be fair, there were those that just wanted to wait to see which developers would sign up with which systems. And others who just wanted to make sure that the system they bought had GOOD games worth playing, developers be damned! That's probably another camp or two entirely, but who's counting?
So you have players operating on indulgence/instant-gratification, product superiority, product loyalty, the number of developers backing the console (which probably has it's roots in the adage, "a 1000 monkeys all banging away at a 1000 keyboards for a 1000 years, and eventually you have to get something good"), and what seems most important, IMHO, GOOD titles worth playing.
It just rather irked me that Iwata sounded so desperately clueless in this interview! Yes, getting it out the door sooner would be great, as long as you don't compromise any of the other things needed to sustain your system! Duh! If they're trying to finger why their sales are low they should look towards their software and hardware. For having spent as long as they did to release, they only surpass the PS2 by a foot on the yard stick.
What do you get when you cross a mountain-climber with a mosquito? Nothing! You can't cross a scaler with a vector.
Nintendo historically has the tag of being a "kid's system". This is often cited as a slam against Nintendo's offerings (save maybe the Game Boy Advance).
:)
In a console market where *three* machines are openly competing, and each succeeding enough to sustain its market presence, I personally think that targeting certain audiences with each console would be a good thing.
It's no secret that Nintendo is actively trying to ditch the "kid" label. Signing Capcom to an exclusive deal for certain Resident Evil titles is a clear indicator of this. So what we have is three machines each trying to be The One Console for everyone.
I would prefer a console market where each system has their own target audience. I would like a Nintendo that focuses on perhaps the "kid-friendly" (which aren't by definition "childish", but have both agreeable content and simplistic enough gameplay that kids can enjoy it) market. Perhaps another console focuses on certain genres or another age group, and another focuses on something else.
Gamers that wish to have their fingers in more than one pot are free to buy multiple consoles (as we already do), but those that fit squarely in a single market and only intend to buy one console can have the console that meets their desires.
If only it were that simple... we'll probably continue to see developers push for the ever-present "multiplatform" releases in attempts to bring in the most sales possible. But a sharp definition of target audiences, if it were possible, could be healthy for the industry, as well as lower development costs (if your target audience is all on one console, you need not waste resources on multiplatform releases).
Freedom of choice is good. I just want our choices to be distinct enough from each other.
Everyone always says that the Xbox is enormous. I'm watching my son play Mario Sunshine on my cube right now. In order to play it, you must pull the GameCube out of the entertainment center. Same thing with the Dreamcast next to it. The Xbox, on the other hand, stays put in it's place just above my receiver. My reciever is 1.6 x 1.8 times as large as the Xbox.
My point is that unless it uses batteries, design is more important than weight. It is way easier to pop a game in my Xbox than my GameCube. Way OT, but worth mentioning.
"My God, this must be a truly remarkable corn chip, to be so widely and confidently touted."
you've got to be kidding, nintendo has nver produced ANYTHING that was backward compatible. both Sony and MS beat the heck out of them there.
First off: That's not actually true. The Game Boy Color was backward compatible with the Game Boy, and the Game Boy Advance was backward compatible with the previous two Game Boy platforms.
Secondly, while no *home* console system nintendo has ever released has been backward compatible (unless you count add-ons like the 64DD and the [japan only] Famicom Disk system), Nintendo has also always in the past always been cartridge-based. This is no longer the case; the gamecube is optical disk based. It is not really particularly easy to maintain compatibility from machine to machine when each machine has a different cartridge format that is going to be a different size and shape. Optical disks, however, are a different beast; this thing alone shows that it is perfectly possible to create one laser that can read both the DVD format and the Gamecube format. If nintendo continues with the optical disks thing, and there is every reason to believe they will, nintendo very well could just allow disks of either sort to fit in their next-gen console.
Now, here's my prediction: Nintendo once released a $50 super nintendo addon that let you play game boy games on it, and now has out a $50 gamecube addon that lets you play GBA games on it. A few years into the Super Nintendo's lifespan, they released a "redesigned" NES, that could play all the NES games but was very small and very cheap, just for everyone who'd never had an NES. From this i'd say Nintendo knows how to milk every last cent out of an expired franchise. My guess would be that if it turns out to be technologically inconvenient to make their next console backward-compatible, Nintendo will just release along with the console a $50 "compatibility card", or something, that will allow people who never had a gamecube to enjoy both systems relatively cheaply, while still making the new system as cheap as possible for those of us with gamecubes.
But what do i know.
---
And anyway, how can you say MS beat out nintendo in the back-compatibility department? MS has only released one console, ever, remember? Wait to make statements like that until the Xbox2 (and maybe, to, be fair, the GC2) is actually *out*.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
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?
This sig intentionally left blank.
You can say, "why can't I get my one single winner console? " and then put in a stupid Tolkien reference. Realize that, much like the Tolkien books, the unification of anything under one power leads to a downfall.
In the gaming world's case, that downfall was how Nintendo raped the market between 1985 and 1989. With carte blanche to force developers into any deals they wanted to, they ruined gaming. Remember Ultra Games? That was a "4th party" Konami used because Nintendo only let 3rd party developers release 2 titles per year. How about the price of the NES set: 200$ USD for 4 straight years. Sound monopolistic? It was.
Competition is good. It means that you have Sony and Microsoft and Nintendo being attentive to the needs of the developers and the needs of the game players. It means that you get more choice, because there is a refinement of target audiences.
I have connected to my entertainment centre right now: NES, TG16, SNES, N64, GC, DC, Xbox, PS2. My Sega Master System isn't connected because I can't find the AC adaptor. Why do I have them setup? Because I care about my gaming. Plus, for less than the cost of keeping one computer up to spec for Doom 3, I can have every console available + the hot games! This means I get my cool Wild Arms 3 and Suikoden 3 on my PS2, I get Metroid and Resident Evil and Sonic on my GameCube, and I get Panzer Dragoon and JSRF and DOA: XV on my Xbox.
If you don't have the money to buy a different console, don't post a whine about it on slashdot. Consoles come out every 5 years or so, and generally have a library of 10 to 15 games which kick ass (the Dreamcast was an exception, with over 20 excellent games). It's as real as the 18 month video card upgrade cycle in PC land.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.