Slashdot Mirror
Guide for the Nintendo Fan at E3
IGN.Cube has details on what its expected Nintendo will be showing off at E3 this year. Whether or not the Revolution gets much airtime is up in the air, but it's anticipated that new DS titles and the system itself are going to recieve the lion's share of attention. From the article: "...we predict that Nintendo will put a noticeable emphasis on its DS lineup and -- save for the new Legend of Zelda -- downplay some GameCube titles. This move seems to make sense as many of the GameCube titles sure to be on display in playable form will either have been previously shown at another event, or will be on the verge of releasing in America. In contrast, we expect several major surprises for the publisher's portable system."
It'd be nice to see some new DS games that aren't rehashes of old N64 titles or geared toward kiddies. I thought the point of the DS was to cater toward older gamers while leaving the GBA for the younger ones.
How many DS games are "N64 rehashes"? Apart from SM64DS? I don't see many, and I don't see many in "production". So I don't get it why people keep complaining about the N64 remakes when there is just one? I think there was some racing game ported from N64 too, but that's about it.
I don't know. When I get my DS (probably this summer) the two games I know I'm picking up are Meteos and Polaris. I'm 22 and this seems to be very much the sort of thing I'm looking for in portable gaming.
--The universe will not be altered by forum threads, even those which are very wry. --Tycho Brahe (Penny Arcade)
Part of me suspects this is a troll, particularly given the usual response that posts like this get on slashdot. However, part of me also agrees with it.
Development costs for new consoles and games are rising all the time. I'm not talking about the cost of manufacture here; it doesn't especially matter that MS used to lose money on every X-Box sold for the first year or two. I'm talking about the R&D costs of actually developing, marketing and rolling out a new console. The pace is being set by two companies with exceedingly deep pockets, Microsoft and Sony. Nintendo are profitable for the moment, but in any kind of long-term endurance battle, they know they couldn't hold on for long. Nintendo have already voiced frustration (and, some might say, fear) with the pace at which console cycles are progressing.
We've also seen Nintendo's game-development suffering a lot over the last two cycles, particularly during the lifespan on the Gamecube. The fanboys may like their new Zelda/Mario/Metroid games, but ultimately there just haven't been enough games selling enough copies. My personal guess is that the price of having to constantly develop new hardware has inflicted serious damage to Nintendo's game development capability, no matter what they say in their public statements.
As for Microsoft buying Nintendo... who knows. There's been speculation on this front for a long time, but nothing even approaching evidence of real intent on Microsoft's part. If MS did make an offer and the details were right, I suspect Nintendo would be mad to refuse it. Of course, Nintendo are an extremely "proud" company (which has been more of a problem than an asset over the last two console cycles), so who knows what they'd actually do in reality.
I realize this is a troll, but I wanted to comment on one thing:
Look at what the next XBOX does, it's as much media oriented (or more so) than it is about gaming.
Is anyone else annoyed by this trend? I don't want a game console/DVD player/Tivo/music station/carpet cleaner. How about individual components that each do their chosen function well intead of one that does them all poorly? Not only that, but with individual components, if one breaks, it has no effect on the others. With a merged setup, if it breaks, not only do you lose the ability to play games, you also can't watch movies or TV, you can't listen to music, and your carpet is a mess. Want to try getting it repaired? Good luck. No one except the manufacturer knows how that thing works, and they'll be charging you the price of a new one to repair it.
Let's keep our media components separate. It makes almost everything much simpler.
--
Promoting critical thinking since 1994.
E3's just a press lovefest. And I have to wonder how much attention it would get if their admission policy were actually enforced. There's not THAT many people in the video game industry, and definitely not that many 16 year olds from the greater Los Angeles area work in the video game industry!
To a lot of people it does make a difference. Both Sony and Microsoft use DVD's as their media format. They already have all the physical equipment built into the system which are capable of doing so much more then just playing games. Why not add them, because all that it needs is some software. This could possibly give them a little more of an edge over the other side. Also, just because they have DVD and MP3 playing etc, doesnt mean that you need to use them. You can still use your componets for that...And because they didnt need to add any new hardware to add those features, its physically not making a different to the unit that is sitting next to your TV. Just pretend that they are not even there!
I'm not talking about the cost of manufacture here; it doesn't especially matter that MS used to lose money on every X-Box sold for the first year or two.
They are still losing money on every XBOX sold.
We've also seen Nintendo's game-development suffering a lot over the last two cycles, particularly during the lifespan on the Gamecube. The fanboys may like their new Zelda/Mario/Metroid games, but ultimately there just haven't been enough games selling enough copies.
Nintendo is the second biggest game publisher in the world. Only EA sells more games. Quite a feat for a company that only markets to their own systems.
Nintendo has billions of dollars in the bank for development. If you look at the launch of the PSP vs. the DS, Nintendo was the company prepared to pay the dough to bring more factories online when the demand was higher than expected while Sony gave everyone some line about how they had to focus on the PS2.
Here is how the big three stack up financially:
Microsoft: Company is on sound financial ground, but their games division continuously loses money. They have lost billions on the XBOX.
Sony: Games division makes money, but the company on the whole is not doing well. They are set to eliminate 20,000 jobs by 2007 and hired a non-Japanese CEO which is a pretty desperate move for a Japanese company.
Nintendo: Company as a whole is profitable. Gaming business is very profitable.
Why would Nintendo allow themselves to be bought? Microsoft can't make money on games, and Sony is in serious trouble.
Nintendo are profitable for the moment, but in any kind of long-term endurance battle, they know they couldn't hold on for long.
Nintendo has been in the console business longer than Microsoft and Sony combined. They are always profitable. In fact, in the fifty years since Nintendo went public, they have only had one quarter loss.
They HAVE endured.
- I want to see something to get me interested in the new Zelda.
- Odama confirmed for release by the end of the year.
- Confirmation of a Golden Retriever in the US release of Nintendogs.
- Pilotwings. Please God give me Pilotwings.
- Alpha Centauri DS online.
- Mario Kart DS online.
- Animal Crossing DS in August.
- Serious Revolution eye candy to shut the haters up. (like it would work)
- The New Tetris DS (you remember, the one from the 64. With the gold and the silver blocks. Best Tetris ever.)
Last E3 was huge for Nintendo fans. Nintendo had promised new ideas and new thinking for years, and they finally brought it to the conference. I can only hope this year will be as exciting.
"Is anyone else annoyed by this trend? I don't want a game console/DVD player/Tivo/music station/carpet cleaner. How about individual components that each do their chosen function well intead of one that does them all poorly?"
Right now on my entertainment center, I have a digital cable box, Replay, DVD Player, VCR, and a huge mess of cables. I'd love to consolidate.
On the flip side, I have a PS2 in the other room that doubles as a DVD player. Frankly, I hate it. Once the DVD's going, it's fine. But the controls for it are awful and I keep dropping the controller onto the floor. Of COURSE the chapter controls are on the shoulder buttons, and gee, guess which hits the floor first?
It's not the I disagree with you. I want a GAME machine. Spare me the cost of playing DVDs and using crappy media. (Argh I wish game discs came in caddies.) But I cannot ignore, however, that DVD playback is simply a software solution at this point. I don't mind convergence at that point.
"Derp de derp."
I bought my DS for this game. It is innovative - unique, and has a good challenge curve. It doesn't have a traditional story-mode type level progression - but the replay value is good, and hell, my wife plays it as much as I do.
I also got Polarium, which is fun, and challenging, although a little bland.
I can't wait for Kirby.
I'm going to rent PacPix this week and see if it's worth picking up, since the reviews were only lukewarm.
Of course you have noticed that 360 and revolution means the same, what you probably havent noticed is OTHER coincidences between revolution and xbox 2.
j pg
:
They both have an ATI based graphics card
They both support wi-fi
They both have an interest in online gaming, (there are rumors a lot of nintendo games will be now online.)
However the most interesting detail comes from an image in the site colony.org this image
http://www.ourcolony.net/images/gallery/Chicago5.
The xbox is on top of the playstation (yeah right MS!) but why is Nintendo on another window? they dont consider it a competitor... or is it something else?
AND....
How come all next gen consoles are going to be presented in may 12 and e3 except revolution (or maybe they are showing revolution?) why MTV mentioned in its original comercial "a new event, a revolution... "
Some extra points
Nintendo has been extremely quiet about their console. (more quiet than usual actually) isnt weird we know nothing about revolution a few weeks before e3?
MS Main intention with x2 is to capture the japanese market. which they are _certain_ to do this time. (why? what makes them so sure)
MS refused to create a handheld, even though they could have (an agreement?)
N and MS had been rumored to joint forces for a project to beat Sony for years. Lots of economists have mentioned it would be equally beneficial for both.
Weird conspiracy theory of the year:
Xbox 360 is... Revolution
(or Nintendo is involved in it somehow).
We will find out may 12
you may freak out now.
Go ahead MOD my day!
More opinions here
I thought they were suppose to give us a teaser for Mario 128. I'm starting to wonder if that game actually exists.
I absolutely agree... I think its a real stretch for MS to make the XBox2 into more of what they failed to succeed with the MediaPC.
Games DON'T WATCH TV... they PLAY GAMES! Maybe Bill figures the XBox2 is going to be so revolutionary that every family will want two!
We'll see but I think this could very well be Microsoft's hardware version of BOB!
I can't stop thinking about what would happen if apple bought nintendo...
I am not an apple fanboy (more like a nintendo one) but when I look at the two companies I keep seeing the same features and defects. They center their software only on *their* hardware, they focus on simplicity and ease of use, and be it cheap (Gamecube, Mac Mini) or expensive (Nintendo 64 [long time ago], Power Mac) they make high quality products.
Wouldn't it be cool playing iTunes on your stilish Revolution while you wirelessly download the game saves onto it?
How about individual components that do their chosen functions well and are able to interact usefully with one another?
I want a video player that will play videos on my TV, and that can be accessed from my computer, and that can, in turn, be accessed by my computer.
I want a video game system that can be configured to play music other then that provided by the game (as the X-Box allows), and to be able to access music from whatever device is acting as a music server.
Convergence in functionality is good, if it means good interoperability. Convergence in hardware is OK if the features make sense. Some overlap is not too bad either. A DVD + Digital Cable box makes sense to me (both play encoded video). A DVD + Videogame system sort of makes sense (both use the same physical media). But a Videogame + Cable box does not make much sense to me.
Give me inteligent convergence, and I will be happy. Try to sell me a digital swiss army knife that does many things poorly, and I will just keep my money.
END COMMUNICATION
Nintendo, legendary game maker, will focus on gaming rather than make another console. This comes after two successive console generations where Nintendo has given up their position in the market and therefore weakened the sales base for their one of a kind games.
.....that's a troll? No, that's common sense or at least better business sense than Nintendo has had (post-1993).
They go XBOX exclusive cause they get a big check, they sell royalty free games, they avoid all R&D costs and they don't have to work around a console launch/sales life cycle. Not to mention, they want to strike back at Sony, cause they are leveraging the Playstation dominance to enter the handheld market.
.
.
.
Nintendo is either out of the hardware (home console) biz by design or the market will hand them the slip. The market ain't going to buy a Nintendo console that competes with PS3/XB2 this generation after how the Gamecube did. It won't happen.
Now why join up with Microsoft? Two reasons. Cause Sony is gunning for the handheld market, threatening Nintendo's current blood line (and using the PS brand dominance to leverage it). Microsoft's bank account ultimately seals the deal.
The fact is that Microsoft owns the gaming market, unless the PS3 is phenomenal. I hope the PS3 is phenomenal, but I look at the PS2 as a lost opportunity in many ways and don't hold all that much hope for the future. Sony makes good looking devices and can market stuff, but their hardware design is only slightly better than their software. I don't hold much hope for the cell chipped PS3.
Actually...I really...really...am starting to like Microsoft in the gaming market and I don't know why. Generally I only smile when I play a Nintendo game but as of late I have started looking at the X-box as something I might actually BUY. The games are fairly good and although I dislike the controller, there is the S-type to use. Now, I would like to see the big N and Microsoft join forces actually. However, I don't want Nintendo becoming part of Microsoft, I would rather just see...a partnership so to speak. It would be something that could bully Sony around a wee bit I would like to think. You have Nintendo's innovation and major franchises and then you get Microsoft's enormous wallet and charisma. I can't help but smile at the thought of this happening...it just seems...good.
What have they made? Well...a profit to be frank.
As for Microsoft buying Nintendo... who knows.
You do realize that Nintendo is a richer company than Microsoft, right? Just because Bill Gates is the single richest man in the world doesn't mean Microsoft is the single richest company in the world.
Don't forget, both companies are next-door neighbors in Redmond, Washington. Just a little fuel for the conspiracy fire (which I brought up in another thread)>
BTW I realize only Nintendo OF AMERICA is located in Redmond. Sheesh.
Well, duh. Why do you think Hiroshi Yamauchi left the board of directors recently?
Sounds like Nintendo is repeating its mistakes of the past...
I can remember E3 (or CES?) before the N64 was unveiled, where all Nintendo had to show was Virtual Boy as it's next big thing, and a smaller form factor for the GameBoy with limited LCD color. There were no big anticipated games either, just sequels for the SNES. Meanwhile Sony was showing the Playstation and Sega showed the Saturn. Nintendo didn't unveil N64 until a year later.
Then for the next generation, it was the same mistake. Sony showed their PS2, Sega had the Dreamcast, Nintendo had nothing (except maybe the Game Boy Advance?). I think the XBOX was shown that year as well. It wasn't until a year or two later that Nintendo finally unveiled the GameCube. It's a great system, but everybody was ready for a new console a year earlier, so alot of people made the switch to PS2. The GameCube came too late, and with too few blockbuster and mature titles.
It's a shame to hear they will be repeating this pattern of entering the arena when the window's almost shut. I can understand being tight-lipped about innovations, but really, the tighter you hold on to something, the less people will care once you let it go.
No offense...I usually agree with this sort of comment, but I think you don't realize what you are saying. I want you to look down, or maybe to the side...you see that thing your keyboard is connected to? Yeah, it's a computer. You know what a console is...yeah, it's a computer to, a bit more specialized. Now take the XBOX, it adds a hard drive, now it really is a computer, just in a smaller form factor and with specific, (generally) non-interchanagble hardware components. Adding more functionally to the device simply means adding different input and adding software.
Seriously, that's all it is. You don't hate computers, do you? You can make your computer media oriented as well. It can be a DVR, it can be a karaoke players...pretty much anything. You are trying to tell me this is a bad thing? Is the failure rate so high on computer that you just can't stand it? I hate to break it to you, but PS2s and Gamecubes break all the time. By adding a hard drive, is the chance to fail higher? Sure...but you have to look at what benefits you get.
Look at cars. Does adding automatic door locks, windows, air bags, computers, stereos, air conditioning, etc add to the complexity? Sure as hell does, those stuff break down too. We still want it though.
So please, integrate my components. Make it so I don't have 12 boxes sitting on top of my tv when one can do it just fine.
Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
Computers are do-all devices marketed towards everybody. Game systems are game systems marketed towards gamers. Integrating crap isn't necesarily a bad thing, but I'd rather pay for what I'm going to use. Think of how much cheaper(and smaller) the X-Box would be if it didn't have all that useless bullshit built onto it. Also, all the bells and whistles in the world don't make up for the fact that the x-box has about two exclusive games worth playing(JSRF and Panzer Dragoon, Halo = generic FPS).
What have they made that was actually worth paying for since then?
GBC, N64, GBA, N64, GCN, and DS.