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.
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!!!
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!
... 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
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.
'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
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.
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
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?
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.
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.