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."
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.
| - | - |
As long as they release it before Christmas 2006 in all the markets they still have a fighting chance. A full year can certainly earn an advantage, but if they come out just a few months later than the other guys it's not as big a deal. Also, remember Nintendo is still Japan centric, and there they only have one competition, Sony.
"A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
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.
Also, don't forget that the console market is not a zero-sum game. Many gamers will want multiple consoles -- so just because most people are buying XBox or Playstation doesn't mean they *won't* buy Revolution.
in fact, the delayed introduction might even be an advantage. After everyone buys their Playstation/Xbox, they save their money for a few months, play out the first big PS3/360 games... and then have the spare cash to buy a new Revolution.
At any rate, the Revolution looks like a very strong console, on the game front -- especially if it's true that it can play all of nintendo's old games. I can play the latest games, AND SuperMario, AND Starfox 64, AND Perfect Dark... all on the same box? Count me in. :)
multifariam.net -- yet another nerd blog
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.
Something tells me the millions of people who haven't splurged on HDTV systems yet, CAN'T.
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.
I was under the exact opposite impression - the PS3 and Xbox 360 are trying to infiltrate the living room as multi-purpose set-top devices by incorporating connectivity to your iPod and PSP, home media server and the expanded content delivery infrastructure MS is bringing in the new version of Xbox Live, while Nintendo was banking on their strength as a 'pure play' game maker and looking to focus their marketing of the Revolution on the device's strength as a game machine.
I'd love a link to the quote you refer to above, if you dig it up.
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.
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!
Surely you're aware that a modded xbox does all of the above for free? (Assuming you have an xbox, of course...)
But can it do so legally? Believe it or not, when given a choice between something legal and something illegal, many people will choose to go with the legal route, especially when it's easier than the illegal one -- and plugging in a Revolution and connecting it to the 'net will undoubtedly be easier than modding an Xbox, finding an emulator and ROMs for it, and getting them on a compatible medium.
Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
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?
But can it do it well? Believe it or not, I too have modded my X-Box, and I have noticed obvious flaws with emulation. The Big-Ass Emulator Disc is slow and sometimes quirky. The Project 64 X Disc only plays a handful of games well enough to be playable. Let's not forget the fact that interface amongst emulators is far from standardized, and support (of all types) is very limited.
/shrug.
As a techie, it was no difficulty to mod my X-Box, but as a gamer I want my games to work well.
Maybe I'm wrong, but the X-Box just doesn't cut it for an emulation machine.
Deja Vu
n. 1. The sensation that you've read this very article before.
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.
The NES Launched at either $199 or $249 depending on if you got the one with the Light Zapper etc or not. SNES launched at $199. As I recall, it came with Super Mario World. Also, the DreamCast came out at $199. The Sega Genesis came in at a little under $200.
I can't imagine why somebody would pay $400 for a whoop-de-fuck Playstation with go-faster stripes. I'll happily back down on that comment if the PS3 actually launches with new games. I mean new in the sense that they're not just higher-res sequels of old games. (Note: At least the original Playstation managed this. I don't mean because it was the first of the line, but it really was a different gaming experience.)
"Derp de derp."
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.
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!