Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Next Nintendo Console In Spring 2005?

Posted by simoniker on from the no-time-like-the-present dept.

Thanks to an anonymous reader for pointing to an IGN story claiming that the Gamecube's successor will launch as early as Spring 2005. This date, sourced from anonymous development houses, seems earlier than expected, and IGN mentions that "..asked if they had received any official documentation for the machine, all software houses contacted said no." But equally, any console getting a head start on the next generation will have a significant advantage, and as IGN suggest, "Nintendo has repeatedly stated that it would not be the last hardware manufacturer out of the gates with its next console."

74 comments

  1. the first horse out is not always the winner. by sweeney37 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm really curious to see if this strategy is going to pay off for Nintendo.

    I'm sorry to say that Nintendo is falling behind not because they were last out of the gate, but because (no matter what software they distribute) they will always have the sickly-sweet stigma associated with their product.

    more power to them though, I've always thought Nintendo has created an excellent product, and competition is good for everyone.

    Mike

    1. Re:the first horse out is not always the winner. by Synic · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Nintendo has always been anal retentive about how they allow third parties to make software for their consoles. They usually come with much higher royalty costs, which is because their non-standard format choices for the media allows them to charge whatever they wish. Console companies need to wake up and get with the program.

      The formula for success is as follows:
      1) Set the bar to entry for releasing games with the official logo low enough to make a small-to-decent profit on each title.
      2) Allow anyone to be an official developer, if they can afford the purchasing of the official developmental hardware units.
      3) Allow anyone to be an unofficial developer using a home-development kit similar to the "Yaroze" program.
      4) Offer several different approaches to coding for the platform. Similar to Katana vs Windows CE approach for Dreamcast.

      Between all these things you will get a ton of developer mindshare and just about anyone with the cash to spend on the hardware development units can at least try to make games for it. If they have something worthy of selling in stores, then the low barrier to entry should allow most (as in, even smaller) publishers to profit on titles (and therefore be interested in funding development).

    2. Re:the first horse out is not always the winner. by alcharn · · Score: 1

      I am really excited to see if this will help benefit Nintendo as well. Competition has set them back, maybe this will bring them back up.

  2. First one out? by glenkim · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This strategy didn't necessarily work for Sega with the Dreamcast. It came out first, and had the edge over the PS2 in certain aspects, yet it still lost.

    1. Re:First one out? by GR1NCH · · Score: 1

      Perhaps too early is a bad thing? PS2 definately has the edge on the current market because of its early release. But at the same time I see where you are coming from with the Dreamcast comment. Perhaps what Nintendo really needs is to come out early while being as developer friendly as possible. I'm sure that Nintendo could win a lot of friends if they were more friendly than Microsoft who is undoubtedly aggressive and unccooperative with its licensing agreements.

    2. Re:First one out? by Jerf · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I was going to make a snarky Dreamcast comment too but I got beaten to it at least twice. ;-) On the other hand it looks like I can be the first to say...

      Perhaps what Nintendo really needs is to come out early while being as developer friendly as possible. ... that that didn't work for the Dreamcast either. The DC was (and is) developer friendly, esp. compared to the whacked-out architecture of the PS2, and, well, it still didn't win.

      On a related note, I'll be intrigued to see how much more power Nintendo gets out of the unit vs. the current Gamecube. Something a lot of fanboys don't understand is that improvement in real graphics quality and CPU performance aren't anything like linear (FPS and pixels/second are somewhat closer to linear). Once you get to Dreamcast/PS2/Gamecube levels, and you get artists who know what they are doing, you need a lot more power to improve the actual quality of the picture. That's why, if you're willing to be honest about it, a latest-generation PS2 game may only look 40-50% better then a last-generation DC game, rather then the 300-400% you might be led to believe from the raw processing power difference.

      There's a danger that by coming out so soon, the last-generation GameCube games and the first games out of the new Nintendo machine might not look as different as Nintendo might like, whereas PS2 was an instant winner over the old PS due to the time span. (The new hardware would of course look better in the last generation, but it has to have people buying it to get that far.)

      I'd say this is a desparation move, and they really need to make sure they bring developers up to speed as quickly as possible, and make the first few games stunners.

      That wasn't enough for the Dreamcast either, but hey, the alternative is certain failure.

    3. Re:First one out? by morcheeba · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'll just second that "DC is dev friendly" comment. I was developing for the DC's VMU (a memory card with a screen, buttons, and 8-bit processor), and the head of developer sw support in the US contacted me (and others) to offer support. They set up a mailing list and got us answers (and sega demonstration code) quickly! They were working on getting us the full-blown dev kit, but said they were encumbered by 3rd-party IP it contained -- still, we got everything we needed to develop with, and some people came out with better games than the professionals.

      --
      HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets
    4. Re:First one out? by Synic · · Score: 1

      Dreamcast lost because Stolar was an idiot. Go read fatbabies.com if you want insight into how Sega of America was mismanaged into death. One example: they turned down wrestling licenses like WCW, WWF, because they thought "nobody was interested in that kind of thing" (hahah).

    5. Re:First one out? by Synic · · Score: 1

      Piss poor texture art can make any hardware's game titles look like crap. Look at how low-poly the models are for the upcoming World of Warcraft game, and how nice they look despite the fact. Good texture artists make a world of difference, as well as good low-poly modeling, and I certainly hope people will figure this out eventually. Now look at Shadowbane for an example of crappy texturing.

    6. Re:First one out? by burns210 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      "This strategy didn't necessarily work for Sega with the Dreamcast. It came out first, and had the edge over the PS2 in certain aspects, yet it still lost."

      The problem was that the dreamcast was release so early, that it was premature, and nearly half a generation early. Nintendo will likely release days or a few weeks ahead of their competition, not several months.

    7. Re:First one out? by zudo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      PS2 definately has the edge on the current market because of its early release.

      Is it really true that ps2 has the edge because of its early release? I think a major contributor to ps2's success (with both publishers and consumers - which obviously feed each other) has been reputation. Sony built a huge brand with playstation and people bought into that when the new machine came out. Think back to the dreamcast launch, no one was interested in it because they trusted Sony to blow Sega out of the water with PS2, with a combination of hype and brand loyalty Sony managed to convince customers to wait for the PS2 to come along before upgrading. Once the PS2 was out and people could finally see that it isn't that much more powerful than Dreamcast, it was too late - people weren't buying DC's so publishers weren't keen to support the platform, people see more games on PS2 so they buy that... What's to stop Sony doing this again with PS3?

      The best hope for Nintendo is probably to continue to try to garner more third party support and shake that cutesy "toy" image, it needs some GTA's to break into the (older) mass market. As for when to release the console - yes slightly earlier might be better but only if they can give people a reason to buy. If people see Nintendo as a format that doesn't get many games or they buy the inevitable hype of the PS3 and XBox2 being much more powerful then they won't invest in the platform. Sega suffered tremendously with image problems compared to Sony; which machine would you buy, the next iteration of the most popular games machine available (Playstation) or the machine from a company who has a history of failed machines (Sega CD, 32X, Saturn)?

    8. Re:First one out? by morcheeba · · Score: 1

      whoops - forgot to mention that I wasn't in any of their dev programs - I was just a hacker with a webpage that caught their eye.

      --
      HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets
    9. Re:First one out? by johnkoer · · Score: 1

      Perhaps what Nintendo really needs is to come out early while being as developer friendly as possible.

      They don't even need to do that. They just have to be friendly with a few large development shops (EA would definately increase Nintendo's marketshare) They need some good sports titles and they need to shake that "cartonny" (is that a word?) image. Sure they can continue to provide the Mario, Link and Metroid series, but I beleive some good EA titles, coupled with a cheaper price would help nintendo out.

      --
      Johnkoerner.com
  3. Difficult times for them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    any console getting a head start on the next generation will have a significant advantage

    That did not help the Dreamcast. Look where Sega is now. Sony is going to have to make a mistake for the lead to be taken from them - like being very very late to the market with an underpowered machine.

    The upcoming PSX reeks of bad planning - people want the PS3 *now* (not some stupid multimedia machine) and they're diluting the Playstation brand with it.

    1. Re:Difficult times for them... by GR1NCH · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I agree with this too... I really wanted to buy a PS2 when I was console shopping but the old technology (in comparison to GCN and XBOX) was a major turn-off, especially since GCN and XBOX can be aquired for much cheaper than the PS2. I think a new overpriced PS2 is NOT going to boost sales for Sony, and they really do need to push out the next gen if GCN and XBOX2 are just around the corner.

    2. Re:Difficult times for them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Sony is going to have to make a mistake for the lead to be taken from them"

      Forgeting to include hardware support for anti-aliasing was a big mistake.

    3. Re:Difficult times for them... by cicatrix1 · · Score: 1

      I really wanted to buy a PS2 when I was console shopping but the old technology (in comparison to GCN and XBOX) was a major turn-off, especially since GCN and XBOX can be aquired for much cheaper than the PS2.

      Can I have some of that crack? I don't think there was 1 factual statement in that sentence, except that the Cube is cheaper than PS/2 (PS/2 costs the same as XBox).

      The technology is different, but not significantly "older" if you can even compare them that way.

      --

      I know more than you drink.
    4. Re:Difficult times for them... by nathanh · · Score: 1
      I agree with this too... I really wanted to buy a PS2 when I was console shopping but the old technology (in comparison to GCN and XBOX) was a major turn-off, especially since GCN and XBOX can be aquired for much cheaper than the PS2.

      And did you ever consider buying the console that had the games you wanted?

      You're talking about price and old technology, but you're not talking about games.

    5. Re:Difficult times for them... by GR1NCH · · Score: 1

      The games are why I really wanted to buy a PS2... but I couldn't justify spending $200 on a system with graphics that look worse than my PC graphics have looked in the past 4 years.

    6. Re:Difficult times for them... by GR1NCH · · Score: 1

      when I was shoping you could get a GCN with Mario Sunshine and mem card for $175, an Xbox with 1 controller and game for about $200 or a PS2 with no games for around $215. The market does change, but this is how it was when I purchased my console. As far as graphics go, if you think PS2 looks anywhere near as good as Gamecube and XBox you are smoking crack. PS2 has great games but the system is old technology.

    7. Re:Difficult times for them... by davidhan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Whatever system has the games I want to play, that's the one I'd get. I think anyone that's owned a console system before would go with this line of thinking.

    8. Re:Difficult times for them... by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 1

      when I was shoping you could get a GCN with Mario Sunshine and mem card for $175, an Xbox with 1 controller and game for about $200 or a PS2 with no games for around $215. The market does change, but this is how it was when I purchased my console.

      I don't know what market you're in, but in the US the XBox and PS2 have been at the same price point (for the console alone) since the release of the XBox.

      As far as graphics go, if you think PS2 looks anywhere near as good as Gamecube and XBox you are smoking crack. PS2 has great games but the system is old technology.

      The GameCube graphics technology is actually behind PS2, though not by much. Even Nintendo admitted on launch of the GameCube that their console was the least advanced of the systems, but they promised to have titles that they believed would better appeal to the market, and a lower price point. Of course, with the most recent price decreases, that price point is not nearly as low as it once was, though the GameBoy Player bundle should help a bit (since the Player will be ~$50 separately).

      --
      -PainKilleR-[CE]
    9. Re:Difficult times for them... by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      Even Nintendo admitted on launch of the GameCube that their console was the least advanced of the systems

      No they didn't. They (basically) said that they favored manufacturing efficiency and cost over bleeding-edge performance. Never *once* did they claim that they had the 'slowest' system.

      If you read the technical specs on the systems, Nintendo cites lower numbers than Sony or Microsoft -- that's because MS and Sony publish theoretical maximum performance and Nintendo publishes typical in-game performance , which is a huge distinction. However, mindless fanboys took these numbers with absolutely no understanding of what they meant and ran with them, creating the popular myth that the Gamecube is the least powerful (by no small margin) of the 3 systems. "Ha ha. Gaycube can only do 6 million polys/sec. Xbox does 125 million polys/sec!" Uhh, yeah, right.

      I'd like to see a statement from someone at Nintendo specifically claiming that the Gamecube is the last powerful of the 3 systems. Give me a link to a news story/press release and I'll immediately withdraw my statement. However, until then, I'll stick with "if a lie is repeated often enough, it becomes the truth."

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    10. Re:Difficult times for them... by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 1

      Actually, I'll have to retract that statement because, not only can I not find the statement, but I believe that it was a comment I read based on their release pricing (in other words, someone commented that they had basically admitted as much by pricing so much lower than the other consoles (~$100 originally)).

      If you read the technical specs on the systems, Nintendo cites lower numbers than Sony or Microsoft -- that's because MS and Sony publish theoretical maximum performance and Nintendo publishes typical in-game performance , which is a huge distinction. However, mindless fanboys took these numbers with absolutely no understanding of what they meant and ran with them, creating the popular myth that the Gamecube is the least powerful (by no small margin) of the 3 systems. "Ha ha. Gaycube can only do 6 million polys/sec. Xbox does 125 million polys/sec!" Uhh, yeah, right.

      The numbers I've seen show lit, textured polygons for the GameCube at 6-12 million. Sony quotes 16 million with 'effects such as lighting and curved surfaces'. XBox polygon specs have been quoted at so many different numbers (100-400M) that it's nearly impossible to say what they are.

      Nintendo's initial press releases regarding performance stated that the PS2 was only seeing 3M/sec in current games (at that time, around 2-3 years ago). I think everyone would admit, though, that the cutting-edge games then don't look like the cutting-edge games now, at least one the PS2, which is probably due to the complaints most developers have about developing for Sony's hardware (in other words, as the developers get better with the hardware, they can get more performance out of it).

      Frankly, when Miyamoto talks about the GameCube vs. other consoles, he sounds like someone that hasn't been paying attention to what's going on outside of Nintendo for the last 5-10 years. He likes stressing that CPU speeds aren't important because video and audio tasks are offloaded to the graphics and sound processors in the GameCube, but ignores the fact that the other consoles do this as well, and PCs have been for a while, too. He talks about how much texturing and lighting can knock off of the polygon rates for graphics processors, yet many graphics processors can do 1 or 2 textures lighting in 1 pass (as opposed to the 'half of half' the polygon rate he brings up, and some graphics chips can do more; I especially like how he takes 'half of half' to 1/10th, then says that means a system with 80M-100M/sec will actually get 5M-8M/sec (half of half of 80-100M is 20-25M, 1/10th of 80-100M is 8-10M) http://members.aol.com/mips36/shigeru_miyamoto.htm ).

      Don't get me wrong, I like the GameCube, and I am going to buy one, but I'm not buying it for cutting-edge performance, I'm buying it for the games. If it turns out to be really impressive, I'll start buying those 2- or 3- platform titles for the GameCube, but at the moment it's the XBox, because in many cases there is a visible difference.

      --
      -PainKilleR-[CE]
  4. I just hope by Masami+Eiri · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I just hope that now that Nintendo's gone disc, they'll follow Sony's example and make this new one backwards compadible.

    That, IMO, is one of the main reasons that PS2 won out over the Dreamcast.

    1. Re:I just hope by Scyber · · Score: 1

      I hope so too, but backwards cambatability isn't always the easiest thing todo. Especially if they change the main hardware significantly. If they do that, it will have to rely on emulation, which would greatly increase the power needed.

      IIRC PS2 got around this by using the PS1 cpu as its sound processor.

    2. Re:I just hope by Synic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, format wasn't the reason at all that Dreamcast failed. It had to do with the fact that Stolar was the most abrasive person you'd ever met, so he'd piss off every prospective client, and that he couldn't recognize a good opportunity if it hit him in the face. If you pay attention, a lot of the good titles for the system came from Japan. For a console to succeed in the United States, you need the American juggernaught EA to publish it's sports games for it. Frankly I find this sad, but whatever. In Japan you need RPG games to succeed (that would mean Square or Enix). Not only do you need one or two titles of these genres from first party or such, you need VARIETY. Sony will continue to dominate as long as they release the most software (despite the fact that most of it is garbage).

    3. Re:I just hope by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 1

      IIRC PS2 got around this by using the PS1 cpu as its sound processor.

      Actually, it's the I/O processor that acts as the PS1 system in the PS2. The processor was developed with another company (at least for the initial runs of the PS2), so it's not quite the original PS1 CPU (though it's probably the same chip used in the newer PSOne consoles).

      From what I've read, Sony's gotten most of the functionality of the PS2 down to 3 or 4 chips (the PS1/I/O chip, the sound processor, and the original dual-chip layout for the graphics is now a single chip). It's usually not too hard to get a new sound chip that works with the old interfaces, so you're basically looking at 2 chips at the front end, and maybe they'll find an even better way to handle it before the PS3 comes around.

      --
      -PainKilleR-[CE]
    4. Re:I just hope by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 2, Interesting

      For a console to succeed in the United States, you need the American juggernaught EA to publish it's sports games for it. Frankly I find this sad, but whatever. In Japan you need RPG games to succeed (that would mean Square or Enix). Not only do you need one or two titles of these genres from first party or such, you need VARIETY. Sony will continue to dominate as long as they release the most software (despite the fact that most of it is garbage).

      Actually, the console was doing ok in the US. It was the fact that it was developed by a Japanese company and was failing in Japan that it died. Sega's own sports and arcade titles have usually been enough to float the company's consoles in the US, even if it's rare that they get the #1 spot. Sega Japan just wasn't willing to support a system that wasn't doing well at home, or let Sega America off their leash to market it properly in the US to take advantage of it's lead-time against the PS2.

      --
      -PainKilleR-[CE]
  5. In a word: by Ayanami+Rei · · Score: 3, Interesting

    PPC970 (or a derivative)

    I don't think there should be a problem (cackles evilly)

    --
    THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
    1. Re:In a word: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jezus Christ, I can't beleive both of you fucktards managed to mis-spell "compatible" so badly.

  6. Stupid ad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what the hell is it with that stupid ad on the webpage? When I see that shit I just close the fucking window and forget about the shitty website and article. Can someone just cut and paste the text so I don't have to sell my BRAIN to some marketers just to read a press release?

    1. Re:Stupid ad by WTFmonkey · · Score: 1

      Sweet Jeebus, at least have the testicular mass to not post this rubbish AC.

  7. well well well! by bmnc · · Score: 2, Funny

    Nintendo wont be the last one out the gate to their next console and M$ have already stated that they will beat Sony to the next gen... I guess Sony has drawn the short straw this time. Bad luck Sony, maybe next time you'll "bags" not being last sooner!

    1. Re:well well well! by easychord · · Score: 1

      Sony seem to be trying the same strategy that worked last time.

      Leave the current console on the shelves long enough to get insane levels of market penetration.

      Hype up the capabilities of the coming real soon now next console in a way that geeks find ridiculous, but makes more normal gamers salivate.

    2. Re:well well well! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "normal gamers" don't you mean closet geeks. Walk to the light, be your self.

    3. Re:well well well! by easychord · · Score: 1

      "More" normal gamers, as in they arn't as quick to spot the fnords and they don't know as much about technology.

      I use normal derogatively.

  8. consoles are obsolete by Tuxinatorium · · Score: 1

    LAN Party >>>> multiplayer console

    --
    Repeal the DMCA!
    1. Re:consoles are obsolete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're not a complete and utter fucking DORK, multiplayer console is much better than the fucking B.O. fest that a "LAN party" would bring with losers like you.

    2. Re:consoles are obsolete by Synic · · Score: 1

      Where are your cajones? Post non-AC, little girlie man.

    3. Re:consoles are obsolete by Synic · · Score: 1

      I hate to break it to you, but there are such things as console LAN parties now (see Xbox/Halo).

      I would agree that each person having their own monitor is nice, but sometimes I'd rather be alone in my house playing online or sometimes I'd rather just have the ability to play multiplayer without needing extra hardware units. That way if I'm the only person "on the block" with the new leet console then I can haul it to whoever is providing the food and beverages. ;)

  9. GameTime? GameProballity? by baloogan · · Score: 1
    They are running out of dimentions!!!

    1. GameLine --NES
    2. GameSquare --N64
    3. GameCube --duh
    4. GameTime
    5. GameProballity
    6. ........ /ol
    1. Re:GameTime? GameProballity? by Synic · · Score: 1

      You sir, are an idiot.

    2. Re:GameTime? GameProballity? by Derkec · · Score: 1

      Idiot maybe, but GameTime isn't a bad name for a system.

    3. Re:GameTime? GameProballity? by baloogan · · Score: 1

      No sir, I am not.
      I just think I'm funny.

    4. Re:GameTime? GameProballity? by Daetrin · · Score: 1

      And you are an annoying flamer, your point?

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
  10. Failed console history by neostorm · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It all comes down to public bias in the end. Of course I have no proof to back this up other than strict observation, but I think one can agree from a similar perspective.

    Sega started getting a bad wrap with the 32x. Similarly poor decisions on future systems (SegaCD, Saturn, etc.) caused a lot of the gaming public to lose faith. I was working in a game retail outlet when the Dreamcast was finally released, way ahead of everyone else and with a great library of launch titles. When confronted with the news of a new Sega machine, no matter how amazing, the majority of the consumers generally replied with distaste, usually making remarks about the failed (US)Saturn and other past Sega hardware.

    Likewise, the N64 could have marked the begining of the end for Nintendo's set top consoles. With a poor library of games and the beginning of horrid developer relations, many lost faith with the big N for their lack of judgment. Now, despite the few beneficial qualities of the GC (great first party titles, excelent hardware engineering, etc.), I hear many people making statemets about Nintendo that are very similar to the gripes that most held with Sega prior to the fall of the DC.

    So while Nintendos poor decisions add to their woes, it only seems to take one slip up and public bias will take a company to it's grave. This is interestingly something specific to the game industry due to the entrenched fan-base, but that's a whole other topic.

    1. Re:Failed console history by Drakin · · Score: 1

      The first party titles is what probably will keep Nintendo going... Zelda, Metroid, Mario and yes, even Pokemon all have thier following, who buy the system for that, and branch out a bit.

      Heck, I haven't bought a consol since the PS1 and right now i'm truely considering picking up the GC, mainly for the Zelda game.

      Now, to find some good RPG's for it as well...

    2. Re:Failed console history by neostorm · · Score: 1

      Get Skies of Arcadia on the GC. I can honestly say that Skies of Arcadia is one of the best adventures I've ever had since I was a kid, though I played it on the Dreamcast first. If you haven't checked that out I actually recommend it over Zelda:WW. Despite the fact that Zelda stands on it's own as a fantastic title any how.

    3. Re:Failed console history by Synic · · Score: 1

      feh. You should have played Grandia II on DC. Skies of Arcadia's combat system is god awful in comparison. That and Skies of Arcadia you can't run away from enemies and you encounter them at horrificially annoying rates.

    4. Re:Failed console history by Scorchio · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Rather than problems with the technology, I think Sega shot themselves in the foot trying to stay ahead of the competition with too many incremental changes - Mega drive, Mega CD, 32X, Neptune, before getting to Saturn. Joe Consumer wants to spend his cash on a console that's going to be around for a few years. If it's likely that the current machine is going to be replaced by a new model at the end of the year, it might be best to wait for that one. Or buy a PlayStation or Nintendo, which is pretty much what happened.

      It's a shame, really, because the Dreamcast is a good console and deserved to do a lot better than it did, but Sega had already lost it's foothold in the hardware market.

    5. Re:Failed console history by goofrider · · Score: 1

      Sega did die a slow death since the 32x/Saturn period. Nintendo made many similar bad decisions with the N64, however, Nintendo is doing just about all the right things with GameCube: low price, developer friendly, etc.

      It takes years for any given console to gain critical mass, and probably even longer for a video game company to recover from its mistakes and regain the top spot. It's obvious that Nintendo will never win over Sony in this generation, but that's besides the point. GameCube is a good platform and Nintendo can use this chance to restore the faith of its customers and developers. GameCube should be considered a successful console if it can claim the #2 spot and stay there comfortably till the next lifecycle.

      It was unfortunate that Sega made so many mistakes. However, Nintendo's current position isn't as bad as Sega (not even as bad as when Sega launched the Saturn). Also, Nintendo has tons of cash in reserve, has the GBA/Pokemon cash cow so that it'll continue to be profitable even if GC turns out to be a massive failure, and unlike Sega, it doesn't have an arcade business to support.

      Nintendo is on track and will likely continue to be a long term player in the console market. But of course, consider the massive success of PS2 and the stiff competition from Microsoft, it has very little room for errors in the years to come.

      The next 18 months or so is particularly critical to both Microsoft and Nintendo, because as their consoled mature and developers become familiar with the platforms, the killer titles will soon emerges and a chance for either platform to reach critial mass. Personally I think Nintendo was brilliant when designing the GameCube -- it placed manufacturing efficiency above bleeding edge performance. Nintendo can price the GameCube @ $129 or even $99 today if they really want to, without losing too much money. Even its $149 price point right now is a huge advantage (the Playstation reached critical mass when it dropped its price to $149). Nintendo actually has a very good chance of securing a #2 position within the next 18 months. Except that I can't say for sure if it will because Ninendo really put on a lousy E3 presentation this year.

    6. Re:Failed console history by cgenman · · Score: 1

      Likewise, the N64 could have marked the begining of the end for Nintendo's set top consoles. With a poor library of games and the beginning of horrid developer relations, many lost faith with the big N for their lack of judgment. Now, despite the few beneficial qualities of the GC (great first party titles, excelent hardware engineering, etc.), I hear many people making statemets about Nintendo that are very similar to the gripes that most held with Sega prior to the fall of the DC.

      This one is wise in the ways of the force.

      Allow me to remind you of one of the main problems with the N64/Ultra64. It was called "Project Reality," and it consisted of teaming up with the most prominent graphics developer of the time, specing out an insane level of polygon-pushing power, and waiting for years until Moore's law caught up to ship. Killer Instinct, the title that Nintendo invested too much social capital in to prove the power of the system, not only failed to ship in a timely fashion, but the N64 version failed to fully re-create the somewhat lackluster and cheeze-friendly arcade game experience. The SNES version, the only one available for many months to die-hard players, was downright pathetic.

      After years (and years and years) of waiting for the product to ship "real soon now," ultimately it underdelivered on everything except for Mario, a game that the developers crammed into a whopping 64mb. Square, and many others, balked at such pithy restrictions.

      One of my points, is that Nintendo has a Looooooooooooong history of vaporware stall tactics. Any reports that they will be shipping in 2005 should be taken with a rather large grain of salt. No ship date from them should ever be taken seriously unless there is hardware in developer's hands and developers are looking at 50-90% finished software (that didn't save the *ahem* Nintendo Playstation, mind you, but they managed to vaporware that for years until the Sega CD issue died of its own accord).

      The other one, is that people buy console names as if they were buying a consumer format. Sega = Betamax, Sony = DVD, Nintendo = VHS. Perhaps console companies like Nintendo should disappear after losing public interest, and re-emerge as a completely re-branded machine with no use of the prior name except as a 1st party developer. Sega's name as a company hindered the sales of dreamcasts, but help software sales. Perhaps Nintendo should cloak themselves in an unrelated name, such as "The Otaku" selling "The Otaku Tessaract," which happens to have Nintendo as a prominent second-party developer.

      --
      The ______ Agenda
    7. Re:Failed console history by Drakin · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the tip, I'll look around for it...

      Main reason I intend to get zelda is because the fact that it's one of the bundles avlaiable... While I like Metroid and Mario, I've had more fun playing Zelda games.

    8. Re:Failed console history by matlokheed · · Score: 1

      You could run from enemies in Skies of Arcadia. It just hurt your ranking (you gain ranks based on certain choices you make). The problem was with the DC version, the load times were so long that it took less time to just kill the monsters than to run away. The Gamecube has much speedier load times.

      They also fixed things slightly on the atrocious amount of monster encounters for the GC version (though there are still a /lot/ of monsters). The encounters have been lessened and the experience handed out has been improved.

      --

      "If the good lord had intended us to walk, he wouldn't have invented roller skates." -Willy Wonka

    9. Re:Failed console history by GR1NCH · · Score: 1

      Zelda is a sweet game but I'd honestly recommend Metroid Prime over it. I am still amazed at how incedible Metroid Prime is.

    10. Re:Failed console history by GR1NCH · · Score: 1

      Joe Consumer wants to spend his cash on a console that's going to be around for a few years. If it's likely that the current machine is going to be replaced by a new model at the end of the year, it might be best to wait for that one. I think that Sony took care of this problem with the addition of Backward Compatibility in PS2, I sure hope that Nintendo is smart enough to follow suit if they are planning on releasing a new console so soon after GameCube's slow start!

    11. Re:Failed console history by neostorm · · Score: 1

      Oh I completely understand where you're coming from. I played all the RPGs the DC had to offer, but Skies hit the spot like no other. I HATED the random encounters, (and yes, Grandia 2 was a dream come true for battle systems) but the rest of the game was so good I was able to overlook that aspect (albeit painfully). The reason I only mentioned Skies in reply to the parent post is because it was the best RPG that was ported to the Gamecube.

    12. Re:Failed console history by Daetrin · · Score: 1

      Why do you say their E3 presentation was lousy? I think i spent more time in their booth than any other. Mario Kart was great, F-Zero was pretty good, FF: Crystal Quest was intriguing, although i'd have liked to have seen the single player mode. Lots of cool stuff as far as i could tell.

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
  11. Backward Compatibilty by goofrider · · Score: 1



    I just hope that now that Nintendo's gone disc, they'll follow Sony's example and make this new one backwards compadible.

    That, IMO, is one of the main reasons that PS2 won out over the Dreamcast.

    Well, first of all, there's an unfair comparision because there was no point in providing backward compatibility with Dreamcast. What could you possibly make Dreamcast backward compatible with? Saturn? (Software libabry too small, most of its best games like NiGHTS or Panzer Dragon do not appeal to the general mass.)

    The reason backward compatiblity is beneficial to PS2 is that the original Playstation had a huge software library, and development was still ongoing at PS2's launch. The same goes for GBA, backward compatibility is important because GB has a HUGE software library.

    I agree with you that the success of the PS2's initial period was largely due to its backward compatibility, but it solely depends on the fact that Playstation was already #1 and has a huge library. It's an advantage unique to Sony at that time.

    If the next Nintendo console will indeed ship in 2005, that will mean GameCube will only have 3 years worth of a backcatalog. Having backward compatibility to this small catalog will probably makes little difference to the console's initial sales. Consider that the Genesis was backward compatible with the Sega Master System (via an adapter), yet it was Sonic that sold the Genesis by millions.

    Moreover, backward compatibilty really does very little to a console's longetivity. After the first year or two, once there are enough native titles out, nobody (other than the really enthuaist) wants to play games from the last generation.

    There are more important things to the success of a console's launch period, like price, launch titles, exclusives, brand loyalty, and most important of all, hype. Backward compatibility is relatively irrelevant when compared to any of those things.

    1. Re:Backward Compatibilty by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, first of all, there's an unfair comparision because there was no point in providing backward compatibility with Dreamcast. What could you possibly make Dreamcast backward compatible with?

      Sega had planned on having software available for the dreamcast to run PS1 games (Bleem I believe it was). The way it would've been offered seemed like a waste of time to me, though, and it really only strengthened the Sony market.

      The reason backward compatiblity is beneficial to PS2 is that the original Playstation had a huge software library, and development was still ongoing at PS2's launch. The same goes for GBA, backward compatibility is important because GB has a HUGE software library.

      While the size of the library is important, I think it's also important to re-emphasize (and re-word) what you just said: PS1 (and GB) development continued after the launch of the new console. Part of it was simply that games continued to go into development for the older consoles after first-gen games for the new consoles started (hell, there are still PS1 games in development), but part of it was also knowing that the console would still be supported on the new platform. Otherwise, if a platform (such as GameCube) was due for replacement within a year, it's very likely that development could stop altogether if the new platform was not going to be compatible (note: this probably would not be the case with the most popular consoles, but development would stop quickly after the new release).

      I agree with you that the success of the PS2's initial period was largely due to its backward compatibility, but it solely depends on the fact that Playstation was already #1 and has a huge library. It's an advantage unique to Sony at that time.

      The advantage isn't truly a unique one, they were just the first to capitalize on it. Backwards compatibility is something that people have always wanted in consoles, and they were simply the first to do it out-of-the-box, without added cost from the end-user perspective.

      If the next Nintendo console will indeed ship in 2005, that will mean GameCube will only have 3 years worth of a backcatalog. Having backward compatibility to this small catalog will probably makes little difference to the console's initial sales. Consider that the Genesis was backward compatible with the Sega Master System (via an adapter), yet it was Sonic that sold the Genesis by millions.

      That last part is interesting to me, because I didn't know there was backwards compatibility for the Genesis, even though I owned one (and my step-brother had an SMS). However, I think it's more important for the consoles that are not #1 to have this, because it could cause people that never bought the first console to buy the new one, and pick up some older titles. After all, the only reason anyone really cared at launch that the PS2 could play PS1 games was so that they wouldn't have to keep their PS1 attached to the same TV as their PS2 (and so many old PS1 systems migrated to people's cars). Most of the people buying PS2 systems already had a PS1 and didn't absolutely need a PS2 to play PS1 titles, it just let them put an old console away. OTOH, someone that never bought a GameCube might like the option to try some GameCube titles if they bought the new system.

      Moreover, backward compatibilty really does very little to a console's longetivity. After the first year or two, once there are enough native titles out, nobody (other than the really enthuaist) wants to play games from the last generation.

      Perhaps it is just an enthusiast thing, but it's still nice to see new PS1 titles hit the shelf every once in a while. I know I'm certainly glad to have most of the Final Fantasy line playable on one console.

      There are more important things to the success of a console's launch period, like price, launch titles, exclusives, brand loyalty, and most important of all, hype. Backward compatibility is relatively irrelevant when compared to a

      --
      -PainKilleR-[CE]
    2. Re:Backward Compatibilty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sega did not participate in the Bleem! project. That was an independent venture that was not supported by Sega, Sony, or any of the third-party developers (really only Konami and Namco) who created games that were compatible with the Bleemcast packs that were eventually released when it was found that 100% accurate emulation was not possible for a significant number of games in one single packaged emulator disc.

  12. backwards-compatible? by MORTAR_COMBAT! · · Score: 1

    Since Nintendo _finally_ abandoned "the cartridge", can we dream of having all our $50 GameCube titles playable on the new machine? If the new machine reads either DVD (probable) or "Pocket DVD" (as it currently does) there really shouldn't be an issue with backwards compatibility unless the new machine is very, very radically different. By 2005 their machine should be capable of strict "emulation" of the GameCube, anyway.

    --
    MORTAR COMBAT!
  13. Target Audience... ! by dbretton · · Score: 1

    I'll keep it short and simple.

    Consoles are becoming increasingly expensive.
    To combat this, companies need to do 2 things:
    1) Lose money on systems to increase market penetration.
    2) Target audiences who have sufficient disposable income.

    As we all know, teens have lots of disposable income (look at all those clothes they buy, and how many times they go to the movies!). Sony and MS went after these target groups very aggressively with sports and action titles that would appeal to teens (Madden Football, Halo, etc.).

    Nintendo, on the other hand, was not as aggressive. They have, and continue to, stick to their 'old guns' of Mario/Zelda/etc. While this is all well and good, it is not targeting the right group of people.

    If Nintendo wishes to survive the next round, they need to shed their current image and develop a new one.

  14. Problems with that formula by L-Train8 · · Score: 1

    That's part of one formula for success. Yes, Sony's embrace of 3rd party developers helped pave the way for their PS1 success. But Nintendo set the bar high for developers for a reason. In the early '80's, a glut of shitty games for the Atari 2600 killed the video game industry. When Nintendo started shopping the NES to retailers in 1984, no one wanted to touch video games. Toy stores told Nintendo that video games were poison, and they would never sell. Nintendo single handedly revived the industry in part by keeping a tight rein on developers and insuring only realatively quality stuff got published.

    I know times are different now. There are a lot of media that cover games, and people have a lot better idea what they are buying than they did in the Atari age. Nintendo has been slow to adapt, but it has made changes.

    The GameCube is very programmer friendly. Its graphics API is based on openGL, so programmers can start out without having to learn a whole new system. Compared to the PS2, it is a snap to program for.

    Nintendo is much more open to third party developers today. They don't have any quality or content restrictions, other than some standard control systems for memory cards and open console lids and that sort of thing. But they haven't done much to publicise that to the developer community. Many studios still think they have to deal with that "Mario Club" stuff.

    I would also agree that smaller studios have a hard time getting dev kits. You have to have a publisher before Nintendo will sell you one. This creates a catch-22. Many studios want to create a demo on a dev kit and shop it to publishers, but they can't get a dev kit without a publisher.

    But the war is over for now. Sony has 50 million or so for an installed base. Developers want to publish on the console that has the most potential customers. The PS2 has about 5 times as many potential customers than either the XBox or GameCube.

    Nintendo's strategy has been to make some incredible exclusive content. Many of best games available for any platform are available only on the GameCube. Metroid, Zelda, Mario Sunshine, are the big guns. They are also trying to leverage their huge install base of the GameBoy by making games that interact with the handheld and the console.

    All these things seem like good ideas to me, but Nintendo is still paying for mistakes it made on the N64 (sticking with the cartridge format, not having enough games ready at launch, and yes, not embracing 3rd party developers). That's when the big switch to Sony took place, and it might be a couple console generations, if ever, before Nintendo can recover.

    --

    Don't forget that Friday is Hawaiian shirt day.
    1. Re:Problems with that formula by Synic · · Score: 1

      On Atari: Point taken. Atari 2600 predates my own gaming experience a little so I didn't think of it.

    2. Re:Problems with that formula by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Atari's problem was more bad inventory management rather than bad games. They would stamp out millions too many games and then shove all them into the retail channel. Retailers ended up with tons of carts they had to give away for $1.

      Nintendo/Sony/etc learned their lesson and are very proactive about getting old non-sellers off the shelves to make room for the new stuff.

      What was learned from the Atari experience:
      1) Retailers only want to deal with one publisher
      2) Retailers want their money back for unsold games
      3) X-Rated Games like "Custer's Revenge" made lots of bad press, which is how you got the "Seal of Quality" and the pure kiddie games on Nintendo.

    3. Re:Problems with that formula by L-Train8 · · Score: 1

      Atari had a lot of problems, and inventory management was one of them. A large and clueless beauracracy at Atari made some incredibly stupid decisions. But crappy games were a big part too. Its not just that they made more PacMan cartridges than there were existing consoles, it's that PacMan sucked and the people who bought it felt screwed and vowed not to get suckered again. I know I did.

      Games like PacMan and ET, which were hyped to high heaven and were some of the worst games for the system really turned off consumers. Ask people who remember that era what the best Atari games were. You'll hear stuff like Combat and Adventure, stuff that came out early in the 2600's life cycle. Ask them what games they hated, and they'll tell you games that came out just before the crash, like PacMan and ET.

      --

      Don't forget that Friday is Hawaiian shirt day.
  15. What Nintendo needs to do to survive by Drop_Trou · · Score: 1

    At this point, the only way that Nintendo is going to survive in the console business is to try to make their next gameboy a portable gamecube and skip N64-level technology. People are losing faith in the gamecube and it seems like only Nintendo is making money on exclusive gamecube titles. There would be so much added value to the gamecube if gamers knew that the games they buy now will also be playable on the next gameboy in a couple of years.

  16. GCN2 vs. PS3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I work at a development company, and I've heard rumors from teh higher-ups who actually deal with such things, that the PS3 will _not_ have backwards compatibility. It was claimed that the backwards compatibility with the PSX had been difficult for the PS2, and was one of the reasons why the PS2 had only two controller slots. So for the PS3 they're just not going to deal with the issue and "start over." Perhaps this is why they're releasing second generation PS2s?

    If the NGC2 manages to pull off backwards compatibility, and beats the PS3 out the door by a few weeks (but not more) it might give them a huge boost.

    1. Re:GCN2 vs. PS3 by JGag21 · · Score: 1

      ".....the PS3 will _not_ have backwards compatibility. It was claimed that the backwards compatibility with the PSX had been difficult for the PS2....." I've heard the exact opposite. Basically, the PS2 just emulates PS1 games, the only thing they added were features to smooth out textures and make the disk drive read the disk faster. But of course, correct me if I am wrong.

    2. Re:GCN2 vs. PS3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I can't find anything from Sony, but the general consensus is that the PS2 I/O Processor is actually a modified PSX CPU. This is the best info on it I could find.

      I don't know if the bit about two controllers is an Urban Legend or not, but the fact that the I/O stream was being run through a PSX processor gives some credence to the idea.

      I'm not sure how the various improvements you mentioned were made, but I suspect it was mainly a matter of taking advantage of the improved graphics chip and other hardware in the PS2 with very little software modification.

  17. GameCube2 Suggestions? by a5cii · · Score: 0

    having bought a gamecube i would suggest to nintendo that they upgrade the graphics spec a lot, most if not all of the games i played had a lot of slowdownin games such as tony hawks and crazy taxi.

    Also maybe they should consider having a slightly bigger console which, now that they have stopped making NES and SNES see http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/05/31/ 0118251&mode=thread&tid=127&tid=186&tid=20 2 would be able to play nes, snes, N64 and possibly gameboy games, either using the original carts or Roms which were available online and could be stored to and loaded from when needed the memory card.

    [eom]
    Dreamcast mmmmmm still the best