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).

First one out?

[glenkim]

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.

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.

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:First one out?

[zudo]

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)?

Difficult times for them...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Difficult times for them...

[GR1NCH]

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.

Re:Difficult times for them...

[davidhan]

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.

I just hope

[Masami Eiri]

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.

Re:I just hope

[Synic]

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).

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.

In a word:

[Ayanami Rei]

PPC970 (or a derivative)

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

well well well!

[bmnc]

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!

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:Failed console history

[Scorchio]

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.

Re:Backward Compatibilty

[PainKilleR-CE]

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