Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Nintendo Confirms New Console In 2005

Posted by timothy on from the long-range-thinking dept.

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."'"

17 of 589 comments (clear)

  1. Whew by Gortbusters.org · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:Whew by digitalsushi · · Score: 5, Funny

      Don't worry- by the time Miyamoto retires, you'll be able to download a binary Miyamoto rom and emulate it on your Pentium 9. Prolly be the last Nintendo product- it'll put em out of business. "New for the Nintendo- MiyamotoBrain! Watch are your carts increase exponentially in complexity real time! How much fun is Nintendo MiyamotoBrain? Let's ask Miyamoto: "AM I THE PERSON OR JUST A ROM?! LET ME OUT!!!" There you have it, only available on the Super Nintendo Entertainment System- Now you're playing with power, SUPER POWER" BUWEAHAHAAAA

      --
      slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
  2. Obsolete hardware by pheph · · Score: 5, Funny

    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!!!

    1. Re:Obsolete hardware by trentfoley · · Score: 5, Funny
      Why do these development companies have to keep developing!!!

      I wouldn't know... I have a Dreamcast. I won't have to worry about Sega releasing new hardware anytime soon.

      But, I'd love to have a broadband adapter for it on the cheap.

    2. 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.
    3. 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?
  3. Re:Good for them! by nomadic · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A mom-and-pop general store that got to the top by strong-arming developers and retail stores into exclusivity contracts. They're an enormous corporation that has played as dirty as Microsoft, and undeserving of sympathy.

  4. 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.

  5. Right On! by Acidic_Diarrhea · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Mod parent up. Nintendo was an 800 lb. gorilla in the video game industry before Microsoft was a monopoly. They've used anti-competitive practices throughout their history and will continue to do so. No corporation which sells products worldwide and owns a baseball team is a mom and pop operation, regardless of who you're comparing them to. Remember the censorship of Mortal Kombat I that Nintendo forced upon Acclaim? First of all, a mom and pop operation couldn't have that kind of sway with other companies but we'll ignore that. Remember when Mortal Kombat II was released on the SNES with all the blood intact? Nintendo took a beating on MK I and lost ground to Sega with that one. I guess mom and pop's moral righteousness fell by the wayside when it affected the almighty yen, huh?

    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.
  6. 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.

  7. Re:Gamecube support, GBA connections, more questio by Godai · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
  8. Personally, I am going to wait... by Patrick13 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I think I am going to hold out til 2016 to buy a new gaming console.

    --
    ::.. check out some Cell Phone Reviews
  9. 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.

  10. 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

  11. 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
  12. Apples and Oranges by rollthelosindice · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I recently got a gamecube, and shortly after sold my PS2. Then I used the PS2 money to get an Xbox. Why?

    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.