Slashdot Mirror
Revolution May Launch Last
Nintendo President Satoru Iwata has publicly stated that the Revolution may be the last next-gen console to market. From the article: "Until today, Nintendo has said only that the Revolution will be released in 2006 in North America, without specifying any date. Iwata's comments indicate that the console could appear after the launch of Sony's PlayStation 3, which is currently slated for a spring 2006 launch in the US. Microsoft's Xbox 360 will arrive on store shelves during the 2005 holiday season worldwide."
Early bird gets the worm, but the first one to trip on the stairs gets mangled.
Depending on how next-gen consoles plays out, this is either A Good Thing, or A Bad Thing.
Roses are red
Violets are blue
In Soviet Russia
Poems write you!
2006? You must be dreaming. The earliest it looks like the shutdown of the analog signals will happen is 2008, and I still think that's insanely optimistic.
Every time a guy gets a threesome, somewhere in heaven an angel gets his wings. --Cary Tennis
Well, you have to keep in mind that Nintendo sells a huge portion of their system in Japan, who don't have such legislation forcing the move yet. Also, there have been rumblings that the date for digital broadcasing may be pushed back to 2008. The HDTV resolution would have been nice in the Revolution, but it's not a necessity. They also have not said it isn't capable of HD altogether either. They may support lower end HD like 720p, but they certainly won't be requiring it from developers like Xbox360 is. Then again...if enough people complain Nintendo may change their mind at the last minute as well. It all depends on how cheaply they can build their hardware and still be able to sell it at a decent price.
"A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
+4 insightful for perpetrating that false statement.
HDTV is not going to be required in the US.
HDTV is most certainly not going to be required anywhere else.
| - | - |
This isn't really a surprise. I don't think anyone would argue that Nintendo is now definitely locked into the runner-up position in the race for dominance in the home video game console market, with Sony and Microsoft going toe-to-toe for the title of top dog. It seems to me that Nintendo has decided to adopt a different philosophy than the other two companies, marketing its products to a combination of children gamers and those who are interested in novel new game ideas. As a result, Nintendo has slipped into a niche market (which I like to call "the Disney of video games") that seems to be keeping it alive.
What's more interesting to me these days is that Nintendo's hand-held console dominance now stands a real chance of being usurped (by the PSP) for the first time since they entered the market with the original Game Boy. Others such as Sega and Atari tried but failed due to the fact that Nintendo was king of home (TV) consoles at the time, but now Nintendo is limiting itself to its more niche audience with the (comparatively gimmicky) DS and could be seriously threatened by the PSP's more broad appeal.
Despite all this, however, I predict that Nintendo will be around for quite some time (in one form or another at least). Their ability to shift gears when needed (remember how the original NES revived the dying home console market in the first place?) and to develop/market new and innovative -- if not practical and appealing -- ideas will assure them some kind of presence for the forseeable future.
Arguing about vi versus Emacs is like arguing whether it's better to make fire by rubbing sticks or banging rocks.
+2 Informative for not being able to tell 3 from 4. (It was never moderated as high as four at the time of your post) and for completely missing the point.
HDTV will not be required, but will quickly overtake the old kind.
U.S. mandates HDTV == Yet another example of U.S. tyranny.
Japan mandates HDTV == Yet another example of the U.S. falling behind.
(Replace Japan with any other country if you desire)
Nintendo doesn't seem to be trying to compete with the PS3 and Xbox 360. I recall reading a quote somewhere from the president of Nintendo claiming that the Revolution would be more than just a gaming system. I don't remember what he said it was supposed to be. I just don't think Nintendo is really worrying about the PS3 and Xbox 360 coming out before the Revolution because it's more than just a gaming system, apparently.
Who knows, though? I don't have the quote anymore, so I could just be imagining things and Nintendo is just getting complacent with their brand. Then again, it is a revolution. What does Nintendo have to fear from a couple of evolutionary consoles when it has a revolutionary one? I kid, I kid...
It's too early for a new system. My Gamecube still gets 60 fps in most games all the time. They should wait until the current hardware is really challenged before they start selling something more powerful.
I believe that the fact that Nintendo's console will probably launching last is a plus. They will be able to learn from the mistakes of it's competitors, and hopefully have more time for development and research.
Something tells me the millions of people who haven't splurged on HDTV systems yet, CAN'T.
HDTV-only by 2006? LOL
First off, the question of high definition support is entirely beside the point. I personally would love to play Mario and Zelda in glorious high definition, but if you honestly think it's going to contribute to Nintendo's "failure" next generation, you need to get a clue. First off, the analog shut out won't be in 2006, it most likely won't even be in 2007, according to the FCC itself. They won't even do the analog shutout until at least 85% of household TVs can receive all digital broadcasts, which some estimate could be another 20 years. Realistically we're not looking at switching over to all digital broadcasts until 2010-2015, which falls squarely into the realm of "the generation after next". Secondly, now that we've established that Nintendo isn't somehow cutting off all their customers, we can move on to the other flaw in your argument- high definition video was never going to be a selling point of the Revolution anyway, it's *not* a system like the Xbox 360 or PS3. Whether the Revolution succeeds or fails will be based entirely on its supposedly mind blowing new concept, *not* what resolution it outputs in, it was never going to figure into a customer's decision to purchase it. Hell, the DS (unfortunately) outputs in a drastically lower resolution than the PSP and is currently stomping it worldwide. That's proof that if you pack your system full of enough other features, stuff like resolution doesn't matter. Not to say I *condone* this practice- not at all, I think the money Nintendo is saving by foregoing high definition support will be trivial at best- but I *am* saying that this isn't as big an issue as many people are making it out to be. Now that we have that garbage out of the way, let's move on to the real issue at hand. I'm going to explain exactly why I don't think the Revolution will fail at all. E3 was a very revealing show this year; not literally, in the sense that the PS3 and Xbox 360 were physically unveiled, but in the sense that know exactly where all 3 major competitors are heading next generation. Sony and Microsoft are at each other's throats, they're going to fight to death over the 18-24 male demographic and have designed systems that are almost identical. Both companies will be pouring millions upon millions of dollars to edge out the other and it's going to end up being a stalemate, mainly because Sony has a much larger user base and Microsoft has a much larger bank account. Nintendo, however, is taking an entirely different approach. I've come to realize now that the DS was more or less a field test for that they're doing with the Revolution- it's a piece of electronics that introduces something completely new and innovative which offers the possibility for radically different games and is appealing to people who have never even had a casual interest in gaming. In an interview, the head of Nintendo's European division commented that, despite everyone's expectations (including mine), the DS is *not* eating into the sales of the GBA, and that's because it's attracting a different type of gamer for the most part. Nintendo hopes to replicate this phenomenon on a much larger scale with the Revolution- it is going to be a system that introduces an entirely new way to play games, and that is going to attract brand new gamers. While Sony and Microsoft duke it out over the established gaming public, which, admittedly, is very large, Nintendo is going after the vast untapped *sea* of potential customers that are the non-gamers, and they're doing this right under Sony and Microsoft's noses. I think Nintendo has finally realized that they simply can't compete on a marketing level with Sony and Microsoft- they don't have the vehemence, they don't have the sheer will, and they certainly don't have the talent for it. So instead of trying to wrestle customers away from their deeper-pocketed competitors, they're going down an entirely different route and making brand new customers. It won't be an overnight thing, but their army of converted gamers will grow and grow to the point where Nintendo will
First and foremost, that the PS3 will launch in Spring 2006. The PSP was supposed to launch worldwide at the end of 2004. Ask our European friends how accurate Sony's launch forcasts are.
The PS3's GPU isnt finished yet. The first Cell prototype was unveiled in March, and it wasn't even the version that will be used in the PS3. I have not heard if that is finished yet.
No one knows how far along the Revolution is. Some people take a lack of news to mean that it is behind, but they said the same thing about the DS before it beat the PSP into every territory.
Wait and see. Nintendo will likely wait for 3 things: the production capacity to meet demand, launch titles to sell the machine, and the infrastructure for their online network. The Revolution will launch when they have those three things or November 2006, whichever comes first.
"the console could appear after the launch of Sony's PlayStation 3, which is currently slated for a spring 2006 launch in the US." Whoa, I never heard anything about that. They announced at E3 that the PS3 would be released in spring of 2006, but they never said anything about a worldwide spring launch, did they? As far as I know Sony's shooting for a fall 2006 US launch, which would probably coincide with the Revolution's release.
"This is considered plagiarism."
At the price the next generation of consoles are being rumored to sell at (as much as $400!), I think I'll stick with my one spare gaming PC. I was going to jump into the console market finally, but I'll wait a year or two until the prices drop at least 50%. If they think I'm going to spend $400 for a box and a single controller and $70+ per game on top of that, they're out of their freaking vending-machine-panty-sniffing minds.
I think Nintendo is looking at their decision to support progressive scan games with the GameCube with some regret. Only 2% of GC owners bothered to buy the necessary cables.
I was one of them, only to learn that my brand new 20' RCA flat screen didn't really support progressive scan as my Target implied. "Get a progressive scan DVD player for this TV" implies that it can show progressive scan to me. Bastards.
Honestly, coming out last is the best thing Nintendo can possibly do. Here's my reasoning.
Nintendo's Revolution is already going to be cheaper than the other consoles, and is still very likely to make money per console. If the Revolution came out first, a lot of people (erroneously of course, but we've already seen how the persistant erroneous statements that the GameCube was 'just for kids' and 'has no adult games' hurt it) will assume that because it is both cheaper and coming out first is must therefore be worse that the Xbox 360 and PS3. However, by coming out last and cheaper, Nintendo simply makes many gamers who failed to look before they lept feel stupid for spending $100-$150 more for consoles that aren't significantly better.
Additionally, Nintendo has a history of being copied. Regardless of whether the controller is a red herring or the sole source of revolution, coming out last gives Nintendo the edge in that they can keep their Revolution secret for longer. If they were coming out before or at the same time as their competitors, they'd need to release information on the Revolution around the same time as Sony and Microsoft and give them plenty of time to make similar improvements or copies of the technology.
Even now, a lot of the hardware for the Xbox 360 isn't even set yet. Of course, if the Revolution is solely within the controller that hardly matters because surely whenever the controller is revealed the secretly assembled crack teams of Sony and Microsoft will be ready to make quick prototypes of their own similar controllers. However, I find it likely that the controllers are a red herring. Perhaps half the revolution lies within the controller, but I predict that either the revolutionary controller will require something that requires special hardware within the console to work, or is useless without the other console half of the revolution.
In any case, releasing last, Nintendo's secret can be kept so until the hardware for the other two consoles is immutable.
Also, being last means that technology will have improved, and thus opening up more opportunities to make a console as powerful as Sony's or Microsoft's without the crazy costs.
The last point is that, remaining last Nintendo can take a good look at the mistakes Sony and Microsoft make, and not repeat them. With the article concerning the design of the competitor's CPUs claiming they are hardly as good as was claimed, Nintendo could easily make a similar CPU that is not plagued with the same problems.
That's my take on it all.
Thunderclone: ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE! ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE!
That said, I think it's almost swinging too far in the opposite direction. It's gotten to the point to where Iwata's statements stop sounding like "refreshing honesty" and go into downright "negative". Let's review the the more notable PR coming from nintendo
- Revolution wont be as powerful as 360 or PS3, but it will be *different*
- Revolution will fail if the games dont exploit how *different* it is.
- Aaaah!! The gaming industry is on the verge of collapse!!
- Third parties may not "get it", and may shy away from the platform because, well, it's just so *different*.
- We're not ready to show the Revolution at E3...
- The controller's not quite finished yet.. but trust us, but we've shown some sketches to some third parties and they liked it.
- No HD support. You don't need it.
- Will probably launch after 360 and and PS3.
Of course, I'm being tonue-in-cheek, and I'm ignoring the "teaser" press releases that do sound interesting (online play, full nintendo library, yadda yadda), but it largely seems as though anything you read about Revolution isn't something you'd necessarily want to tell the hole world about. I mean, sure, be honest and everything, that's great. But it's one thing to let it slip in an interview that the Revolution will not have HD, but quite another to go to the media screaming "HEY GUYS!!! THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT HAVE HD!!! TELL YOUR FRIENDS!!"It's like Nintendo has adopted a sort of devil-may-care, go-buy-a-revolution-but-if-you-dont-oh-well strategy that I don't quite understand.
Beyond Nintendo... I'm getting damn tired of all the press releases from the Big Three in general. I've never seen so many press releases preceding an actual picture of an actual game running on actual hardware (not some tech demo on a dual-cpu uberPC/Mac tricked out with an to-be-released video card). This is even worse than the last wave of consoles. Put up or shut up for cryin out loud!
I don't know why the DS didn't ship with a couple simple games pre-installed.
Other than Metroid Prime Hunters First Hunt?
Minesweeper would've been a great start
Minesweeper, or Luminesweeper?
They probably could've licensed Snood for pretty cheap
Bust-A-Move and the knockoff known as Snood are already officially ported to the GBA.
Even if you threw enough hardware at it, and scaled up everything, the textures and artwork aren't designed to be output at the resolution. It would look like crap. There isn't enough detail to fill all those pixels.
Ever tried running FCE Ultra or Snes9x under "hq2x" interpolation mode? It makes classic systems' graphics look almost PS1 quality. A Nintendo rep did comment that a lot of the classic games in Revolution's online rental service would get a facelift.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't /. cover a story a while back where someone from nintedo stated that they were very intent on making sure their next console (revolution) was NOT released last?
iwata said that it could possibly fall be hind by a small amount. that means 1 or 2 months. that's just too insignificant to make a difference. I think the PSP won't be going anywhere for a while, but it may discourage Sony from making another handheld console. I mean, it's early in the game, but so far the PSP has failed to overtake Nintendo's marketshare, and has failed to be profitable and probably won't for a good amount of time. All it's doing right now is hindering Sony by eating their money. The real problem here is that Xbox and PS3 are gunning for marketshare dominance with a total disregard for profitability. I'm glad Nintendo is taking a different road and doing some more interesting things with gaming instead of just beefing up graphics. The PS3's lifetime will mark about 25 years (by 2010) of Playstations using essentially the same controls to play the same types of games.
Except for their original Nes and Gameboy.
-Super Nes. After the Turbo Graf 16 and Genesis had been released.
-Nintendo 64. Much delayed, released after Saturn and Playstation.
-Gamecube. Released after PS2 and almost at the same time than Xbox
So, when Iwata originally announced that Revolution would be released at least at the same time than PS3, I was happy. Now I see that nothing has changed at Nintendo since the change of CEOs.
I believe that the Revolution is coming out at about $200, but even if I'm wrong, it won't be more than $300. Games will be the same price as they are this generation, plus, if Nintendo's smart, the older, emulated games will be very cheap.
When you buy a console, you're buying a guarantee that you will be able to play games on it for 3+ years, without having to worry about performance issues. The price of a new CPU, Video Card, and more RAM to upgrade your gaming PC to last 3 years would easily be double or triple the price of a console. Consoles are a great investment, if you like the genres that they excel at.
I think its safe to assume that Nintendo's system will be fairly under the price of the 360 and the PS3, considering they have stated no ridiculously lofty performance goals, and taking into account historical trends. I expect <$300 to be honest.
If you want to complain about consoles taking the roles of computers, look toward the dvd playing, hard drive wielding PS3 and 360.
If I recall, the NES, SNES, Playstation, PS2, and XBox all came out as $300US.
Both Sony and Microsoft will throw a lot of marketing money around. If Nintendo delays it a bit most people will have forgotten most of the marketing hype, or they will have played the games and separated the hype from the reality.
They'll have larger impact then, and they can react to specific marketing strategies of their competitours.
Well, it always helps if you SELL the cables to do so. You can only buy the damned component cables through Nintendo's website (and a very few other online venues). It was six months before I realized why I never saw the cables (despite checking for them on every gaming shopping trip), and at that point places like Gamestop and EB couldn't even ORDER the damned things. They took the capability out of later Gamecube models because supposedly there was a lack of interest, but by that time it was a self-fulfilling prophecy.
As for regretting the inclusion of the capability, I simply can't believe that it cost that much extra to include 480p functionality. Assuming the internals (video subsystem, CPU) can handle HD resolutions, there certainly wouldn't be a big cost to include HD output on the Revolution, either.
I understand that households with HD are still the minority. I can even make room for the possibility that it will continue to be so for the next several years (though I personally think that as prices go down, within the next three years everyone who can afford an HD set will have at least one). Still, if Nintendo does not at least include HD as an option in the Revolution, I think they're hobbling themselves unnecessarily.
But the Dreamcast was launched first, from launch times the Xbox 360 is more Dreamcastish.
10 PRINT "LOOK AROUND YOU ";
20 GOTO 10
Uh, HDTV is required in the US. Do you think that US broadcasters would willingly invest millions in new broadcasting hardware to reach a very tiny customer base? I don't think so.
The truth is, the FCC decided to require broadcasters to broadcast x% of their programming in HDTV. That's why you can buy an HDTV and get programming for free over the air.
The HTDV broadcasting requirement was tied to keeping existing TV broadcast licenses.
Further, you should see the extent to which the existing broadcasters and cable companies have waged regulatory war against the Microsoft/SBC IPTV project.
Nobody is going to require you to purchase an HDTV, but the FCC has required broadcasters to broadcast it against their will.
Amazing magic tricks
Why not pick up a console this generation? I saw a new gamecube bundled with Zelda for $99 recently. It's a great machine with lots of great games you can pick up cheaply new/used. I think it will keep you playing for at least a couple of years until the price comes down on the new consoles. Here is my list of outstanding titles:
Super Smash Brothers, Mario Kart, Zelda The Wind Waker, Beyond Good and Evil, Time Splitters (and TS Future Perfect), Metroid Prime (and Metriod Prime 2), Simpson's Hit and Run, Viewtiful Joe (VJ 2), Donkey Konga, Zelda Four Swords (though really requires friends and GBAs), Super Mario Sunshine, Pikmin (Pikmin 2), Prince of Persia, Resident Evil 4, Super Monkey Ball (SMB 2), Animal Crossing, F-Zero.
There are other great games as well but you see my point.
Thank God for 8 and 16 bits is all I have to say.
It's not HDTV. It's digital TV. They are not the same.
But EA was a huge factor that Sega didn't secure with the Dreamcast. I know you weren't implying that the Xbox brand would go under, but expecting failure on the same scale will most likely leave you disappointed.
"This is considered plagiarism."
Let MS and Sony bash each other and spill all of their specs for one or two big headlines in the media, then Nintendo lets out a little more and steals the headlines. Let Sony and MS build hype up for their launch, Nintendo drops the big bombs such as the controller. It is a chesslike marketing game, and with this announcement Nintendo has the ability to keep firing shots in the whole way until the launches of the PS3 and 360 and stealing their thunder. I personally think it is brilliant and will actually swing the favor to Nintendo wildly as the launches near.
http://teasphere.wordpress.com - A little spot of tea
I wasn't mixing the two up... HDTV is forced upon broadcasters. Digital TV (iptv) is being blocked by the cable tv lobby. My point was that there are a lot of screwed up regulations going on that don't really benefit anyone but entrenched interests.
Amazing magic tricks
I know its supposed to have this cool controller, but beyond that what does the revolutoin have going for it? I love gamecube and my gameboy advanced, but what they should do is see what Microsoft will put in the Xbox, and match it or exceed it...since they are both using the same processor type (powerpc) and graphic card company. Or they should launch the system at a much lower price, like 150, not a price like the budget dreamcast price like of 200 versus 300 for a full featured system.
However, I am eager to see their new controller, Nintendo brought both the rumble pack an analogue stick to consoles, Playstation and Sega Saturn both did not have analog controls until after the Nintendo 64 had laucned, nintendo is like the apple of the console business and its to early to count them out. Lets face it, the dual analog sticks have their limitations, I am hoping they create some radical interface that can beat the mouse and keyboard for strategy games and first person shooter (could happen) while keeping all the advantages console controls have for action games.
When you really examine and think about the design decisions of the Gamecube you can come to the conclusion that Nintendo really learned something from the 'problematic' N64 design. They're like Night and Day; the Gamecube is supposed to be a system where the Hardware is so well balanced that it over-achieves, whereas the N64 was full of so many bottlenecks that most developers couldn't get close to it's potential.
Now what most people forget is that the Gamecube was supposed to be released in 2000 with a CPU that was in the ~250 MHZ range; The gamecube actually released in 2001 with a CPU in the ~450MHZ range. This means that Nintendo will continue to improve the hardware durring any delay.
One thing that I thought about, which I have no basis for, is that Nintendo may be trying a different approach with their CPU (and potentially their GPU). From anandtech both Sony and Microsoft are using old (potentially obsolete) CPU cores in their multi-core processors; this (apearently) has them underperforming. Now, Nintendo may have IBM producing a Multi-core (or single core) processor that is based off of a far more advanced processor core architecture. Now it occurs to me that if they were working on newer technology that it may take them longer to complete (and ballance) all of their hardware.
Not to mention that Sega was smarting already from the Saturn (hard to develop for, poorly marketed, etc. A horrible flop). The Dreamcast again wasn't marketed well, and unlike Microsoft, Sega just didn't have the wads of money and the third-party support.
Release date was only part of Sega's problem, they were already going downhill.
Armored Core 2 or 3.
Why yes I am paranoid! Thanks for asking!
Yes you are.
The airwaves are being taken over by Digital TV, not neccessarily HDTV. Broadcasters are in no way obligated to broadcast HDTV, nor will they be when the switch is complete in a couple (years, decades, place your bets).
Digital TV is being forced apon roughly 15% of the public, it simply won't matter to anyone who pays for their services from either cable or satellite. High Definition Digital TV is not being forced apon anyone, broadcasters are free to choose from any of the various digital standards that have been created, which can go as low as 640x480i which is no better than the current analog transmissions.
There are 18 Digital TV transmission standards from which broadcasters must adopt, but guess what? Only a third of them are considered high definition.
If you want your words to be read, please at least try to organize them into paragraphs.
> Well, you have to keep in mind that Nintendo sells a huge portion
> of their system in Japan, who don't have such legislation forcing
> the move yet.
Huh? Yes, we do. July, 2011.
They took the capability out of later Gamecube models because supposedly there was a lack of interest, but by that time it was a self-fulfilling prophecy.
They did?
Then why do developers continue to churn out progressive scan games?
I'm glad Nintendo is experimenting with different user interface ideas. I'm the gamer that buys everything. I have the latest graphics cards, every console, and all the handhelds. So to be honest, it is a bit refreshing to get something different for my money, instead of just having another machine to shell out for if I want to play all the exclusives.
It will be interesting to see what (if anything) is 'revolutionary' about Nintendo's next hardware.
Thanks for the info ;)
:P
Although, by that time the next generation will be coming out, and I'm sure Nintendo will support HD with that one
"A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
I got third party cables from Best Buy, and my games look great on my parent's TV. (55 inch front projection I think). I know when it comes to consoles, third party is bad. But I don't think it's that big of deal with cables.
Abaddon: An Xbox 360 Indie game
Firstly, sorry if you're being driven nuts. But remember there is A) Always a fanboy whose heart will not be swayed until the corpse of Mario/MasterChief/Sonic/Sony's Exec is rotting in front of them B) Actually, there's quite a lot of them. Additionally, you're C) Never going to convince them otherwise and D) Are probably wasting your time if that is the demographic you're targeting with your post.
The people who I attempt to speak to are those who aren't on any side, and for those people insight as to why Microsoft rushing to go first is good for the Xbox 360, and Nintendo waiting to go last is good for the Revolution is valuable.
To respond more specifically to some of your points, Microsoft's, Sony's and Nintendo's different strategies are closely related in how one defines "winning" the console war.
Microsoft wants to grab a lot of market share as evidence of "winning" the console war (specifically to take out Sony). For that purpose, being the first on the market brings with it the bang of being the first.
Sony thinks along similar lines, but their console has usually come out after or about the same time as another console in that generation, and has managed to grab the largest market share. So, Sony is likely to do what has worked in the past.
It's pretty obvious that either Nintendo no longer bothers with trying to grab market share, or has at least gotten good at making a large profit regardless. For them, a smaller company without the ability to risk as much (as they don't have other divisions to make up losses) competing with the marketing machines of Sony and Microsoft by releasing the Revolution near to when their rivals consoles come out is simply wasted money. Certainly, they could potentially grab more market share that way, but it's only a potential market share, and if the potential market share doesn't make up for the expenditure of resources sufficiently to justify the risk, Nintendo won't do it.
It would be foolhardy to think that bringing in the rear is either devoid of benefit or devoid of detriment. This is true of any release date. No matter when you release the consoles, each is taking risks. Microsoft is risking suffering a similar response as what happened with the Dreamcast, Sony is risking Microsoft succeeding with its early launch, and Nintendo is risking losing out to whichever of the other two comes out on top.
Honestly, we could theorize about who could come out on top all day. That, however, would be utterly pointless. It's excessively easy to make statements like, "because of the hype Microsoft and Sony laid out for their consoles, gamers will be dissapointed by the actually graphics for the first wave of games and wait for the revolution" or "everyone will be dissapointed by the Revolution because it will be viewed simply as a gimmick". These statements are entirely unhelpful because even professional analysts can't predict how people will react and what they will do. I didn't claim that because the Revolution will be coming out last, Nintendo will crush the other two. All I said was that it was good for Nintendo to do so. We can't predict how the next console war will play out yet, we can only observe the strategies of the competitors and find where the holes and, and what actions are golden.
In fact, gamers should really hope that no one ever "wins" the console war. Were that to happen, there's simply be one gaming platform standing alone without competition to force innovation and creativity. We simply wouldn't have a choice.
In the end, I would make argument that each company is following very closely the path each must take to do as well as they can. Sony and Microsoft are huge companies that can tie in their consoles to all sorts of devices and software they make. Nintendo makes games and game hardware, and has nothing to tie into. So, it makes perfect sense for Sony and Microsoft to make the "media center" consoles they've designed, and for Nintendo to be more focused. If you look past the hype, and look
Thunderclone: ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE! ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE!
That is purely a technicality. The point remains that the FCC is requiring broadcasters to broadcast a format that NOBODY owns a TV capable of watching!
Amazing magic tricks