Next Nintendo Console In Spring 2005?

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."

Comments

the first horse out is not always the winner.

[sweeney37]

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

Re:the first horse out is not always the winner.

[Synic]

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).

Re:First one out?

[Jerf]

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.

In a word:

[Ayanami Rei]

PPC970 (or a derivative)

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

Failed console history

[neostorm]

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.

Re:First one out?

[morcheeba]

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.

Re:First one out?

[burns210]

"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.

Re:I just hope

[PainKilleR-CE]

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.