Slashdot Mirror
Nintendo Revolution Under Wraps Past E3
The next-generation Nintendo console, codenamed Revolution, may not be shown at this year's E3. Eurogamer reports that the Japanese console maker is going to keep the console under wraps to keep the features of the new system out of the limelight a little while longer. From the article: "Nintendo boss Satoru Iwata is worried about rivals nicking all his best ideas at this early stage. That's how revolutionary the new console is, apparently... and also the exact same line Nintendo used to avoid showing Mario 128 at a previous E3."
Maybe it has.... 3 screens?
...he is definitley the hardest one to beat. I remember that time I played all night long and I made it up to Boss SI (that's what it says above his life bar cause his name doesn't fit on the screen). I was kickin ass, but then my mom came and pulled the stupid plug.
Wow. It's a good thing they kept the GameCube secret, otherwise sony and microsoft might have outcompeted and outsold them.
Because of course Sony and Microsoft only hear about features at conferences like E3. While the rest of us get the inside track at Slashdot!
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised.
I'm so frustrated with Nintendo. It's like they haven't gotten it since the early 90s with the SNES. CDs? Who needs those? Whatever defines their self-made revolution had better be the end all to games for it to fly. PS3 and 360 are going to appeal to the masses and steal away more of Nintendo's turf. I myself am considering jumping ship as Nintendo has failed to inspire me this last generation as it did with the first two.
"I'll believe it when I see it. Until then, spare me the hype."
So I take it that you won't be paying attention to the XBOX 360 or Playstation 3, either?
"Derp de derp."
I have owned every nintendo system since the NES (haven't picked up a DS yet though), and the video gaming experience from nintendo has never been matched for me by other systems (Genesis might have briefly come close). I grew up on Zelda, Mario and Metroid, and I have loved seeing how these genres and characters have evolved (I swear I have loved 100% of each of these game's evolutions over the last 20+ years - that track record simply can't be beat).
Nothing against PS2 and XBox, but I have absolutely no interest in following the adventures of "Master Chief," or Ico. I'm sure these games are good, but I won't be playing them.
"That's how revolutionary the new console is Lets just hope that doesn't mean something like "Lets dare to be different, and use annoying mini-disks instead of the standard DVDs. They provide lower quality, AND they don't meet up to modern-day standards. Its brilliant!"
This might be insightful if Nintendo wasn't responsible for the standard 4 controller ports, standard analog sticks, standard 'rumble' functions, the huge portable gaming market, yadda yadda yadda.
"Derp de derp."
The Open Source community has the most to gain if Nintendo releases a console based on Linux.
"Nintendo has the most to gain by releasing a console based on Linux. In this respect, they could capture some console market and then facilitate for the same apps to be released on Linux."
There are more people with GameCubes than using Linux today. Why would Linux make the next Nintendo system suddenly capture marketshare when nobody even cared that the PS2 had a Linux kit?
"Derp de derp."
They have pulled the exact same trick for the N64 (remember the Ultra64?), Virtual Boy, Game Cube and DS. Meanwhile the consoles that left a significant mark on their generation were the NES and Super NES. What did they have that made a difference? Certainly not the fancy gadgets. Remember that NES robot that was promptly set aside?
What made them special is that they offered the best games and were the most powerful at the time. Mario and Zelda made the NES. They also made the Super NES, along with Street Fighter II and Mario Kart. We would almost cry at the inovation of the gameplay, quality of the graphics and music, and amazing fun they provided.
Today it's all about superficially good looking graphics. Gameplay and fun went the way of the dodo. Meanwhile Nintendo thinks it's okay to have consoles with non standard earphone plugs...
I miss those days spent with the old NES/GB/SNES...
Thats odd, considering the DS has sold more than half a million more units the PSP in Japan, and were released only within a few weeks of each other.
I'll buy it, since I'm a huge Nintendo fan. The casual gamer won't be so accomodating. Nintendo needs to build some hype around the system if they want to actually change the video game industry. Right now, even some hardcore Nintendo fans are skeptical.
Nintendo - shooting ourselves in the foot since 1990...
"no seriously, i think this just means that theyre not ready to show it."
Or it'd be simple to integrate. The Dual Shock controller came out pretty quickly after the N64 was unveiled.
"Derp de derp."
Actually, they seem to be pretty neck-and-neck (in Japan at least). Check here for details.
Nintendo has this obsessive-compulsive desire to be original and I hope it doesn't dig them into an even larger hole this time. Time will tell, but it doesn't look to be on Nintendo's side a.t.m.
"They provide lower quality..." AND they reduce piracy, which is excessively rampant for the XBox and the PS2. Go looking for XBox and PS2 game torrents, and you'll find them by the hundreds. You'll be able to count the number of Gamecube torrents on your fingers. Besides...lower quality that's also better than the PS2? Not lower quality, but rather less space.
It's really hard to imagine what these secret features might be. M$ and Sony are about upping the graphics ante, not about incorporating voice recognition, three screens, body sensors or whatever new ideas Nintendo comes up with. Maybe if these features turn out to be a success in the marketplace -- unlikely if the DS is any indicator -- the other console makers would think about incorporating them. I figure Nintendo's secretness is just a way of building hype around the product.
Ludwig Wittgenstein
Might they be holding out to unveil it at the Tokyo Game Show, so that they can completely steal the headlines for the entire show instead of sharing space with the other systems at E3?
The Braying and Neighing of Barnyard Animals Follows.
The N64, which was originally the Dolphin, then the Ultra 64 was delayed almost two years. The Gamecube was delayed as well. Now we're seeing the possibility of an Xbox release this year, a possible PS3 release in Japan end of this year/early next, and Nintendo hoping to get the console out by end of 2006. If it's not delayed again. Then they release the DS, and now the Gameboy Revolution planned. The DS was a quickly made half-assed portable to beat the PSP to market.
Don't get me wrong, I used to be a huge Nintendo fan. I always thought they were pioneers, but they're becoming that old dinosaur of the industry that's only still around because the brand name itself has some intrinsic value.
annoying mini-disks
If you're referring to the Gamecube's discs, what the hell are you talking about?
lower quality
In what sense?
don't meet up to modern-day standards
It's true that they don't have as much capacity as DVDs, but how many multi-disc Gamecube games have there been? In fact, the smaller discs are capable of spinning faster than DVDs, providing faster transfer rates (or so I've heard).
Oh you bring a tear to my eye. Oh how you bring back the memories of Slashdot of years past. You know, Slashdot before the Legion of Jobs showed up and proclaimed that Apple had an answer to everything.
Yes. Bring me back my old Slashdot. Please, please bring back:
1. Make it with Linux
2. ??
3. Profit!
Bring back the good old days, when BSD was dead and Red Hat was king.
(and yes I AM serious)
Sometimes my arms bend back.
Great, now I'm bald.
Damn you, Nintendo. I have been a loyal servant of yours ever since I first played Super Mario Brothers 2 on the NES: I've fought for you time and again in the useless internet debates; I've spent my hard-earned college cash to pay for your no-internet system with lacking 3rd Party support; I even still lug around my N64 because it has games I enjoyed enough in the past that I might want to play them again in the future, but I'm not really sure if I ever will!
Doesn't that deserve something? If nothing else, show some footage. I don't need to see the actual system or controllers right now; but damned if I don't see any 'eye candy', and I'm not talking those sweet Ssian numbers you put on display... actually, that's more of a Sony thing.
In any case, I digress. While I can understand wanting to keep industry secrets secret, we're not asking you to reveal every spec of the system. If all you did was hint at what makes this console a 'revolution', and showed a picture of one of the buttons on the controller, that would be enough for many a fanboy.
So, Nintendo, I ask you this: Please, please, won't you show something? Have we not earned at least that?
Someone else modded him down while I was looking for the "-1 Belabored" or "-1 Bad Joke" options in the moderation box. =)
Maybe I should have been looking for "+0.5 Almost Funny"?
Consoles have essentially one hardware configuration. A heavyweight OS like Linux would slow it down horribly. If you want a general-purpose machine instead of one only to play games, go buy a PC. In fact, you can play games on those, too.
English is easier said than done.
Nintendo can unveil it at E3, and go up against Microsoft and Sony's HUGE marketing budget and hype. Magazines would probably have a triple feature, with sections given to each system and the respective company booths.
Or, Nintendo can wait a couple of months until the media coverage dies down a little bit, unveil the console, and get the cover of every non-platform-specific major game magazine in the biz. This decision shows not a lack of preparation or a schedule issue, but a smart martketing choice.
And I just bought my Gamecube in January... guess you bastards are going to force me to upgrade my PackardBell to play doom 3, too?
GEeez... you buy something new and it gets outdated in just a few years.
The mini-disks are used because they avoid DVD licensing issues and the constant velocity drive gives better performance (shorter loading times.)
So what if Nintendo doesn't show their new system at E3? It's not like the system isn't going to be demonstrated months before it's release anyway. Sure internet nerds like us will be disapointed, but I'd wager that a good majority of video gamers don't really care about who does what at E3, but rather will have their interest piqued by what's advertised in the mainstream media. This could even work to Nintendo's advantage. People get saturated by all the stuff that's released at E3, thus diminishing the impact of the information released. By letting the other guys beat at each other for a while, Nintendo can see where the bar is being set and can have their own press release a month later. This gives the gamers a chance to cool down and get hungry for more information after E3, and Nintendo does have a knack for making interesting and engaging presentations.
When is the new Nintendo system coming out? Before the next E3? If not, then I'd say they don't want to become old-hat before it does come out. They'll let Microsoft and Sony demonstrate all of their new features that will be seen as "older" when E3 comes around next year when Nintendo announces their new features.
Nintendo can also concentrate on their Online component (which would be ignored even more if the new system was unveiled).
The "stealing our ideas" is just PR bullshit.
Having said that, if the systems are to be released before the next E3, I can see this as being a BIG mistake.
When's the last time Rare made a good game?
Why am I not rapping? I am rapping with you in a way.
My personal opinion is that Nintendo lost a ton of respect in the gaming market with the Gamecube. The gamecube is still a lot of fun, but to me it feels more like a little kids toy as opposed to PS2 or Xbox. Given the choice to buy one single console, I would certainly choose a PS2 or Xbox over a gamecube any day. The gamecube just doesn't cut it for my needs. Let's hope this "revolution" truly is a revolution for Nintendo.
Nintendo got it right with the GBA though. Based on current prices I'd still take that over a DS or PSP.
Nintendo doesn't need to show off their system to let developers get a feel for it. It is 100% backwards compatible with the Gamecube and uses the same development API.
Effectively they can run a more fine grained marketing strategy because of this. No need to shout "you should learn how to program like this." Once Nintendo 3rd parties have the devkits in hand they should already know how to program it.
Remember: This is a TRADE SHOW. You let developers and publishers know what's up. Nintendo has already told them enough to get started. Know your Gamecube and Nintendo DS APIs and you should be good to go for everything Revolution.
The thing people don't realize here is that Nintendo is a hugely profitable company. Even though it's console was a distant 3rd in the last race, it makes so much money off of games and eventually hardware (as it becomes cheaper to produce) that they don't really care about losing big time to sony & microsoft (in the US at least).
Nintendo can really do whatever it wants. No matter what it will make up more then enough in the pure software sales on it's next gen system alone. MS & Sony don't have this advantage. For 1, MS has to buy all second party support, which costs mega $$$, and they don't have many (any?) first party games. Sony has paltry first party games, and the bulk of sales on software is given to third parties (the bulk of software sales being the bulk of profit available from consoles).
That's the economics of Nintendo, and if you aren't used to it by now, you've been naive.
ANyone who shows off new hardware at E3 is a complete idiot when it comes to marketing. When we see a new console or big game it can usually get a good 4-5 page spread in magazines, 2-3 articles on big websites each and so on and so forth. Now if you release E3 week you get 1 mention per website thrown in with the 2 other consoles and general games which "look amazing and will rock the world!" type stuff. If Nintendo really want the hype they will wait 2-3 weeks after E3, let the other consoles hype die down and then show it off in an exclusive event. That way they don't have to compete with anything but "heres what we saw at E3 that you rad about 2-3 weeks ago on every website there is" type articles.
Plus they would get their own Penny Arcade strip rather than one based on the 3 consoles which may do them alot of favours.
I like muppets.
It's not to say you can't do both...... Nintendo isn't saying they're going to go backwards on hardware or something. Just that their philosophy is that a focus should be on fun and enjoyable games, rather than just purely on hardware, etc. used to do more advanced versions of the same basic game types.
Regarding the second comment...... just because something is a sequel to an existing franchise doesn't mean it can't be something new. And conversely, something can be a "new" brand but still basically be just a rehash of old ideas. For the most part, when you look at some of the recent Zelda and Metroid sequels, for example, you see something where they take elements and brands that have existed before, but do pretty new things with them. I don't think I'd blame them though for doing something in the vein of an existing franchise though, rather than creating a completely new franchise, because it can make it a lot easier for someone to pay attention to a completely new game if it is part of a universe and history that people like.
-Tom
Shame Nintendo isn't third. The Japanese market laughs at the Xbox and it will the next generation of it. Nintendo aim games at real gamers (I mean old school not Madden 83049234 players), they know their market and what they want. Quirky games which play well, have short load times and are generally fun to replace when you don't know where every monster is and what weapon to shoot it with.
As long as Nintendo stick to their guns and keep making fun games their fanbase won't stray too far. They may not make them number 1 in the games market but right now it's been flooded with "Average Joes" who just want the latest EA offering, Halo whatever it is now and don't care about anything except pretty graphics.
I like muppets.
Heh. Well I have a theory. Rumor has it that Nintendo is choosing between two or three systems right now. Assuming that's true, maybe Nintendo's waiting to see what MS and Sony do before making any commitals.
This may seem a little out-there, but if Nintendo is doing something revolutionary like putting a touch screen into the controllers, it stands to reason that the money put into those will result in not as spiffy of graphical specs. If the difference is that noticable, perhaps they're deciding between a $200 system and a $300 system.
Anyway, maybe that's just my imagine working over-time. If I were a bettin man, though, I'd say that Nintendo's big revolution isn't in the system itself, but in the controller. It's probably too late for Sony or MS to mess with the system specs a lot, but tossing in a controller feature may not be out of the question yet.
"Derp de derp."
Look, the X-Box 360 and Playstation 3 are already designed and getting ready to debut at E3. It's not like they can radically change the design in time for their ship dates by stealing Nintendo's ideas at E3.
DS was featured at E3 in May of last year, and had several changes made to it before its launch on September 21st. 4 months sure can make a difference.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding the situation, but I thought that patents existed exactly for individuals and companies who created new and different (revolutionary) technology. If Nintendo invented a new technological innovation for incorporation into their next-generation system, I would have expected them to have filed for a patent on the invention long ago, thus preventing their competition from "stealing" the idea.. or is it not revolutionary enough to be original? Thoughts, explanations?
"As long as Nintendo stick to their guns and keep making fun games their fanbase won't stray too far."
Nintendo's got themselves an interesting situation here. They do have their fanbase and they can remain successful maintaining it. Despite not being #1, Nintendo's not exactly hurting here. They may not have several 10s of millions of GameCubes out there, but several of their titles have surpassed the million-units-sold mark. Nintendo makes a LOT more money on games than they do on consoles, especially the first-party ones. (That's before even mentioning Nintendo's hand-held monopoly... wow.)
Nintendo's biggest success here, as you've stated, is in their self-branded games. When those start becoming run-of-the-mill (and yes, there is a serious risk of that happening), then I'd be less inclined to argue with people predicting Nintendo's demise. Man I'm seeing a lot of Apple similarities here.
"Derp de derp."
You must be new here...
You see, a vast majority of the people on slashdot, for one reason or another, do not like to pay for information, as information wants to be free and slashdot denizans respect its wishes. So, they naturally migrate towards the PS2 and XBOX, which facilitate the freedom of said information, and Natalie Portman naked and petrified.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
I think one thing to remember is that the DS is not nintendo's next generation hand held. That is still coming. The DS was something to throw at the psp to slow it down. I don't know if the Revolution will bring back some of niontendo's lost market share, in fact I doubt it will, but nintendo didn't end up with billions in the bank by being stupid.
That said, I think all of the next consoles are going to have an uphill fight for volume simply because their projected street price brings them awfully close to computers which have more utility and a larger body of games.
Because slashdot just absolutely has to print every single rumor without ever once actually saying the rumor is offered without basis...
Nintendo has said multiple times that they will be unveiling the Revolution at E3. They've given warnings along the lines that it may be at an early stage, or that it won't be playable, or that some of the demos may be behind-closed-doors, at E3. But they at least have said they'll be showing it. And this has been said by Nintendo representatives, speaking on the record.
So, what's the source for this article slashdot links, which is saying it won't be?
"Reports". From "Japan".
You'll excuse me if I take repeated statements by official persons speaking for Nintendo more seriously than "reports from Japan".
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
You've got thepoint exactly. As long as Nintendo starts to take a few more risks and release some more games based on their most popular series (Metroid - Mario - Zelda - Pikmin - Pokemon and Super smash brothers). They can keep a float happily in the console market (Lets not get into DS VS PSP. IMO Theres no choice between the two. I'm still waiting on getting some cahs bakc I'm owed to go pick up a DS). They just need to loop back their revolutionary talk into games. If there is anyone who can beat the "lets make it all from tin foil to impress people!" market it's the old N.
Ask ANYONE who played Tetris and they'll comfirm this. Even today that game looks and plays as good as ever. Halo 2 VS Tetris and I know which I'll still wan tin 10 years time.
Hell I still remember the Christmas I got my GB. I remember the batteries dying and all 3 games we got that year. Infact I have a GBA and a bag of 40-50 GB games right next to me.
A true sign of a good console is that you never want to get rid of it.. I dread to think what I could buy if I put all my consoles on Ebay (Everything from the Nes-master system era right up to the PS2 and Cube), but they are so timeless to me that it's jus tnot worth it.
SNES games still look fantastic to day, PSX games look unplayable.. work it out from there..
I like muppets.
Nintendo used to have an annual show just for them: Spaceworld. That's where the GameCube (and the original realistic Zelda demo) was shown in 2000. It's been dead for a few years now, but new system makes the perfect excuse to revive it.
Vibrating controllers came to be standard fare when the Rumble Pak came about.
Not long after the N64 was unveiled, Sony released it's Dual Shock controller (complete with 2!! analog sticks and a built in 'rumble' feature.) to the PS1. Then, the Dreamcast had it's own 'rumble pak'. Then the PS2 came with the Dual Shock Controllers. Then the XBOX came along... etc.
Personally, that little tidbit about the Dual Shock controller is what's making me wonder about Nintendo's secrecy, here. I personally think that they did something snazzy with the controller, but they're trying to prevent an imitation of the feature from making it into the boxes of the PS3 and XBOX02's.
"Derp de derp."
You don't believe Nintendo's ever coming out with another console?
Wow... that's, uh... interesting.
~ Aero
I'm not sure gamers want something revolutionary.
Damn what "gamers" want. I want something revolutionary!
It won't be at E3, though. I'm really disappointed about that, 'cause I'm actually going this year. Maybe I should just save the plane fare, hmm.
They are diluting themselves in the market. If they launch systems this close, they need to drop support quicker. For example, they should only make only DS and GBA games in 2005.
???? Revolution
2004 DS
2003 Gameboy Advanced
2001 Gamecube
1999 Gameboycolor
1998 Gameboypocket
1996 N64
1995 Virtualboy
1991 SNES
1989 Gameboy
1985 NES
"Nintendo has the most to gain by releasing a console based on Linux."
WTF? If I wanted to play games on something with an operating system, I'd be playing on my PC.
What would be the point in putting Linux on the console? Increase overhead in order to lessen the performance of the games? Remember how many games used WinCE on the Dreamcast?
Weren't Sony the ones hyping their system beyond any reasonable expectations of its capabilities? It seems (to me, at least, a compulsieve between-the-lines reader, that) Nintendo is just trying to be wary of not doing the same thing and then getting hosed when the final product fails to meet expectations.
So calling your console "Revolution" does not equal hype?
One of three things are happening here: ~ Number 1 (and the most likely one), the Revolution has a new, intersting idea that's generally good and will make for a good console. However, it's nothing Sony and Microsoft is going to go out on a limb to steal. So in summary, Iwata is completely paranoid. ~ Number 2 (the one everyone prays for), the 'Revolutionary' concept, really is that big. Like, "redefine all of gaming" big. Or at least, "Dude! This is the rox0rs!" big. ~ Finally, Nintendo is simply playing a hype game. Regardless of how good the system is, the speculation is going to be bigger. Thus, it's a marketing ploy. This seems highly unlikely, as it would work against them as of E3. ----- http://www.nwizard.com/
Look at me. I'm bashing my head on the keyboard.
sfdgferbewfrerszt trewrd fgdswerdesbf
Do you really think that showing it to the public is the same as showing it to developers?
Attracting third party developers is not a panacea. Microsoft is certainly losing a lot of money going that route. Nintendo might not compete with Sony for marketshare, but their heavily first party (and thus heavily exclusive) lineup does well at holding on to a core of fiercely loyal customers.
You shouldn't think of Nintendo as Gateway to Sony's Dell... Nintendo is the Apple of the console business.
Think about it: Heavy on concept, low on market share, and with a related consumer product (the Gameboy) whose design has managed to totally dominate its market continuously against technically superior competition.
Let's look at the N64's innovations.
Analogue stick: copied by Sony within a short period of time.
Rumble Pack: copied by Sony within a short period of time.
Four controller slots built into the system: Featured in all big systems that came afterwards (except Sony for god knows what reason).
Really, what is there left to copy? MS is more than likely (according to the GDC) tied into development contracts, and a change at this point would ruin their hoped-for Q4 pre-christmas ship date.
Physics is nothing like religion. If it was, we'd have an easier time trying to raise money!
And Playstation's features that Nintendo later copied? Optical disk format.
Who copied it from 3DO, who copied it from Sega (Sega CD) and NEC (PC Engine CD).
Nintendo has said that they're showing it at E3. They EXPLICITLY said they will have it at E3, but are deciding whether to have it playable or not.
Every big rumor site disagrees about Nintendo not showing at E3 (see Spong). It's only rumors running around that Nintendo won't be there; and there is absolutely NO official sources involved.
I don't believe it.
Of course an Onyx can bowl over an N64, but proportionally no other SGI system could match N64 at the time! Even VGX couldn't do much texturing and no other desktop SGI system had texture hardware! In fact, the N64 emulator ran on an Onyx.
Knowing this, was the convention really that far off base from reality? N64 really CAN do a 2D Mario sprite placed in a texture-mapped city street scene easily after all...
Maybe it's got a built in lazy susan, the obvious next step in the evolution of the paddle controller.
The Farewell Tour II
The irony is that Sony had partnered with Nintendo to develop an optical drive for the Super Nintendo, and when Nintendo got cold feet, Sony took what they'd learned and created the Playstation. Microsoft did the same thing, partnering with Nintendo to learn about game system development, but pulled out of the agreement to create their own game system. The main difference is who broke up with whom: Nintendo dumped Sony, causing Sony to create the PS; Microsoft dumped Nintendo, suggesting they went into the relationship with less-than-honest intentions.
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Gandhi
The only thing the DS has that got me to buy it was it's backwards compatibility with GBA games.
Not only that, but with the EFA-Linker (under $100 incl. shipping), you can play a boatload of NES games and many Game Boy games as well. So now the Nintendo DS is compatible with GBA games and unofficially compatible with many NES and GB games, but Sony couldn't be bothered to include a PS1 emulator with the PSP and uses code signing to prevent the free software community from stepping up.
The XBOX has one profitable quarter after eleven straight losses, and everyone calls them a success.
but they're making up for it in volume!
"Eh I'm so confused by this. Just 2 days ago I read that Nintendo was going to show clips of the games, but not the actual system. *Rolleyes* In any event, I wouldn't equate that with "we have nothing". Nintendo wouldn't make that bold of risk at the turn of a new generation."
Better yet, who cares at all? You're not going to buy the console either way until it launches anyway. Yes, I know the situation is more complicated than that, with shareholders and such, but as far as actual sales go, they aren't getting any until launch, and if they don't release the specs by launch, something has gone horribly wrong!
"When the atomic bomb goes off there's devastation...but when the atomic bong goes off there's celebraaaaation!"
Correct me if I'm wrong, but alot of what I've read on "Revolution" has Nintendo trying to cater to those people that don't play games. I vaguely remember some interview with an exec say something like "Mom will walk by and want to play." Or something.
Point being, I'm thinking talking about Nintendo catering old school, or not catering to the masses, etc. is missing the point of "Revolution." It doesn't sound like it's going to be simply a natural progression of graphics, a different (but very much standard) controller and added internet support like Microsoft and Sony are planning... it's going to be their best effort to get the people that don't play games and never have to play games.
This will probably entail two things that they don't want to show off yet... a weird controller (touchpad, tilt controlled, etc.) that has been rumored and games that will disappoint us the old guard of gaming. In fact, if my predictions are true, they'd be better off unveiling on Oprah than at E3.
I find a few statements made by some Slashdot members to be incorrect or misleading. Facts: - Nintendo has USD$10 billion in the bank. In cash. They have more than enough scratch to put on a show at E3. - Nintendo is one of the most innovative (and profitable) companies in existence. During the 1980s, they controlled over 90% of the US market for a time with the NES. The image of Mario is as recognizable worldwide as Mickey Mouse. A few years ago, the company posted their first quarterly loss in history. I would say that if Nintendo doesn't get it right this time and re-assert their previous dominance, they're pretty much done as far as the hardware game is concerned. I'm a long-time Nintendo loyalist; like another posted before me, I also grew up with the Zeldas, Marios, and Donkey Kongs. It's sad to see a company that the industry owes so dearly in this kind of shape. I will always respect Nintendo for sticking to their guns (albeit stubbornly at times) and making great games for kids. My biggest beef with the industry now is how the games are a) boring and b) less risky and finally, c) "interactive DVDs". Nintendo's new CEO mentions these points in the 2005 GDK keynote speech. Perhaps a game that is indicative of this trend is the latest Final Fantasy. What happened to good ole fashioned button-mashing gameplay?
And this is why I respect Nintendo. In today's world of companies making promises that they can't keep, Nintendo continues to remain honest. For example, when they released the information on the GameCube's max number of polygons per second, they gave a number that reflected what you would see in a real-world application, while the specs for the PS2 and the Xbox were pretty much the highest number they could get under extremely specific circumstances.
If anything, Nintendo underhypes their consoles. While this ensures that people will not be disappointed when they compare what they hear with what they get, people will see the higher (probably lab setting) specs of the other systems and go for them. What really bothers me is that people seem to be choosing games and gaming systems based on graphics alone. Sure the PS2 has a lot more games than the gamecube. Unfortunately, a large percentage of them are (for lack of a better word) crap.
SNES games still look fantastic to day, PSX games look unplayable.. work it out from there..
That's got a little more to do with 2D games aging better than 3D games, I'd say, than Nintendo. Example of PSX game that is perfectly playable (even downright pretty) to this day: Castlevania: Symphony of the Night. This is also the reason that GB games age better. Graphics weren't as much of a selling point on a lot of those old 2D games, gameplay was.
This is actually the reason that the DS makes me somewhat sad. The GBA really was the last great refuge for the 2D gamer.
Tell me. What does "purple" smell like in _your_ world?
Important question: By the "real" RPGs are you referring to all the SquareSoft RPGs that flooded the older Ninentdo Systems. (I am sure some of them were good, and others great but I hated RPGs until about four years ago)
Unless I am mistaken Sony stole Square away from Nintendo by paying them a TON of money to making Playstation and then PS2 only games. In the end Square wound up back with Nintendo and making good RPGs for Gamecube, or so I hear.
To be honest I still prefer my PC RPGs that I have played. Baulder's Gate, Knights of the Old Republic, Morrowind, and my only MMO, WoW.
One final thing, I think Nintendo is bound for some for of eventual hardware doom. Similar to Sega. The two companies who were making GREAT consoles before everyone owned a console really didn't/don't have the continual monetary power to compete against MS (who can pump money from a million places to feed XBox and flog a dead horse for as long as they want) or Sony (who can do a similar thing, heck aren't they still making PS1 games). Sadly if you have enough money to throw at crappy console (PS2 has the worst load times and most overrated Graphics EVER) you can keep it afloat until the masses buy into it because of a few good games (ie X-Box and Halo).
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
I'm not sure exactly what deal was there between Sony and Square. All that mattered as a gamer was that suddenly the good games (for my taste) were on the Playstation, whereas the N64 had zero games I was interested in.
/. wouldn't forget this easily the way Nintendo tried to bully developpers into submission, and tried to enforce contracts that basically said "If you want to make games for our console, you peon, sign here that you're never ever allowed to make games for any other system.")
However, I do know that:
- a lot of other developpers just preferred the Playstation. I don't think Sony paid them all off.
- Making games for the Playstation was more profitable. Nintendo has a long history of trying to make others foot the bill. E.g., see how once they tried to announce a GameCube price cut to a level barely above what the retailers paid to Nintendo for it. Basically trying via hype to make the retailers take all the price cut, to help sell Nintendo's crap.
In the case of developpers, developping for Nintendo's cartridge format didn't leave you with much money out of selling those games. That went a long way to convince developpers jump ship to Sony.
- Nintendo's snotty attitude did not help, either. Nintendo still hadn't gotten past it's SNES times ego trip.
(You'd think that the anti-monopoly gang on
Nintendo didn't even try to meet those third party developpers half way, or at least listen. The attitude was "Fuck, you. We're the Big N, you're the peon. You're the one who'll be sorry you left."
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
As for RPGs, well, the PC indeed had some good ones, but they were few and far in between, back in the day of the PSX-vs-N64. Sure, you had some gems like Fallout 1 and 2 or Baldur's Gate or Planescape Torment. (KOTOR and Morrowind came _much_ later.) But that meant something like 1 good RPG per year.
By contrast, the PSX had a couple dozens per year. You can probably see how even for us PC RPG gamers the Playstation was a very tempting proposition. And how the N64 was just not a contender for that market segment.
But PC gaming was also always a niche market itself, compared to the larger and more lucrative console market. Don't get me wrong, the PC has some great games, but the cost of hardware to run them well has always been an issue. Back then, even more: a high-end PC used to cost some 2000 dollars, a console was 300 dollars. So more people had a console than a PC.
So there IMHO was (and still is) a whole market who really just faced the choice "do I get a Nintendo or a Sony", and the PC was a non-factor. And there it boils down to "which of those has games that match my personal preferences."
Nintendo painted itself into a corner by cattering to just a niche. There were a lot of genres which just were not available at all on a N64. So fans of those genres really had no reason whatsoever to buy a N64 or Nintendo's games.
(Incidentally, yep, it's very insightful that you mention Sega there. One of the main complaints about the Dreamcast was the same: whole genres were missing. Heck, I was a Sega fanboy, and even I was irked that you couldn't find a good Dreamcast RPG for love or money for the first two years or so.)
Plus Nintendo's flogging the dead horse that games are only for kids was a bad maneuver. I'm not saying that they shouldn't have made games for kids too. But focusing _only_ on that corporate image drove away the lucrative market of adult gamers. Bad move: even for kids, it's the parents that pay for the console. Sony bet on having games that Mom and Dad too can play, and it paid off.
Basically I'm saying that it wasn't just a question of pumping money into something. It was a question of making it useful for more people.
Sure, the PS2 had bad load times and its graphics indeed didn't really live up to the hype. But whatever genre you preferred, you could find one on the PS2. On the other hand, most genres weren't available for love or money on a GameCube.
Basically it's the difference between "overrated" and "useless". Sure, the PS2 can be filed under "overrated", but for anyone falling outside of Nintendo's target niche the N64 or GameCube fell squarely under "useless". That's what really made the difference, IMHO. If that's the choice, I'd rather buy something overrated than something useless for me.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
If I want to blow things to bits, I load a proper strategy game. E.g., "Rome: Total War".
When I was a kid. I never understood why grownups stopped watching cartoons. I still think they're a hoot. I never wanted to grow up to be some boring fella who could only find enjoyment in boringness. I don't know, but I'd rather fight the evil Dr. Robotnik than yawn through some ultra-realistic game with super grainy or horribly polygonated graphics. (Not that I'm saying E rated games are not polygonated, I'm saying that if the game is suppose to look realistic, it doesn't).
Who wants to sneak around with a square head with a "Realistic" face painted on? Who wants to fall asleep while playing a game with a depressing and slow storyline? I sure don't. Kiddy or not, I have fun.
Having been a long time member of the gaming media, and beginning at the Atari 2600 I generally have a finger on the pulse of the industry and I think things are about to change. This is a bit counter to the common opinion and even though the DS seems a bit flat I personally am starting to become bored with the current state of Sony and MS.
Videogames were never about wowing hardware specs. and that is all that is pushing Sony and MS into the "Next Gen" consoles. Nintendo is the only company staying out of this arms race and concentrating on innovation. I don't want to be playing Gran Turismo 8 on the PS3 and GTA 7 I want innovation and fresh new ideas. Katamari Damacy proved the success of innovation on PS2, and while it does exist on these two platforms, Nintendo has the track record of fresh new ideas in games and interfaces (even though there are the same parallels to be drawn with Zelda, Mario, etc. they all tend to be new and fresh each time out of the gate)
Coming from someone who never purchased anything past the SNES and GBA from Nintendo, my feelings are changing quite rapidly toward the Revolution. I think it is finally going to reach a point where gamers are ready for a change, and I think that time is closer than most think. I want Nintendo to succeed, I want gameplay and attention to detail to reign supreme, and it isn't going to happen with the PS3 or Xbox 360 they are just beefed up editions of what is available now playing the same games and the same franchises with little to no advances aside from graphics.
I'm ready for a revolution after covering Sony for 10+ years.
http://teasphere.wordpress.com - A little spot of tea