The Next Gen Consoles - The Bigger Picture

Next Generation Magazine is running a series of articles on the next generation consoles, and what they mean in a larger perspective. The Xbox 360, PS3, and Revolution have a lot riding on them as the start of the next round of console wars gets underway. All three companies have their own goals and histories to consider when it comes to the business of games. From the 360 article: "Someone, somewhere, probably still believes Microsoft got into console games for the kudos of putting out Halo. Good for them. The world needs believers, and every time you say 'Xbox is a Trojan Horse', a fairy dies."

Comments

Broadly agree

[RogueyWon]

I think I broadly agree with the conclusions of these articles, although I would raise a couple of counter-points and cautions.

First of all, I'm not so sure that MS want the 360 to be a Windows-gaming-killer. If they do want this, then quite frankly, I think they're mad. The fact that Windows remains the only realistic platform for home computer-gaming (and yes, I know you can play UT2004 on Linux. When you can play every other game on my shelf on it, I might start to listen) is a huge advantage for Microsoft on all kinds of levels. It keeps Windows on home PCs... nobody wants to have to tell the kids they can't play their games any more because daddy wanted to experiment with Linux. By doing so, it keeps the population at large extremely familiar with Linux. This means that companies and government departments have a huge incentive to stick with it on their desktops; there's a reasonable expectation that new employees will already know it to a basic extent. Windows gaming has many problems, the ease of piracy perhaps chief among them, but MS would be crazy to kill it.

Other than that, I agree that MS are putting a lot of eggs into the 360 basket. I'd be a bit more optimistic than the article about their chances; I'd also be more willing to say that a lot of people who work in MS games have a real passion for games - they put out a lot of high quality (and often fairly niche) titles. Personally - I'd see the 360 coming out of the next round as a strong second, with perhaps 2/3rds the sales of the PS3.

The PS3 article did make me smile. It's true that Sony have taken what could be seen as a soul-less, corporate attitude to the console market. It's also true that they've managed to give their customers a lot of fun by doing so. Their ability to draw high quality third party developers to their platform is going to remain the single most important factor in the console next-gen. Personally, I suspect the PS3 will win the next-gen battle, with slightly better overall sales figures than the PS1 or PS2.

On the Nintendo front (and this is where I get modded down by the zealots), I agree that they've got a tough fight for survival in the next generation. Putting so much faith in the ability to play games from previous systems is going to please the hardcore, but the mass-market just aren't going to care. The controller might be wonderful and innovative, but we're not back in the early 90s, when Nintendo could lead the market in this respect. Chances are, the controller will end up as an oddity used for a couple of first and third party games, but otherwise be largely forgotten. And yes, the point about how the DS's strong standing isn't as positive for Nintendo as you might think is *very* valid. Of course, they could pull off something spectacular with the Revolution and leave the generation as market leaders. I woudn't go betting the ranch on it, though. Microsoft and Sony can afford to accept losses today, while they maneuveur for the market position that will allow them to make much bigger profits in the future. Nintendo don't have the pockets to allow for that; if their profit stream dries up, they're in trouble. Personally, I suspect the Revolution's going to flop.

Oh well, this is all just speculation. I suspect we won't have any real kind of picture until this time next year.

Re:Broadly agree

[Ralin_JM]

Contrary to popular belief, nintendo has very deep pockets. The have a very large cash reserve they've been keeping for a rainy day, and have yet to ever dip into it.

Nintendo may not be a market leader, but every gamer I know owns a GC in addition to thier PS2 or x-box. I don't think sony or ms can "steal" Nintendo's customers when people are willing to buy both. Nintendo has a very stable niche market that isn't going away any time soon.

Re:Broadly agree

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'd be a bit more optimistic than the article about their chances;"

Yes, because rushing a weak piece of hardware out the door with the same exclusive titles the vast majority of console gamers didn't want on the first xbox are going to magically become more desirable on the 360...

"I'd also be more willing to say that a lot of people who work in MS games have a real passion for games"

Really? How come every interview with one of the clowns from the xbox team at MS sound like they are a bunch of dimwitted pricks?

"they put out a lot of high quality (and often fairly niche) titles."

Yes, that is why xbox owners talk about how they don't give a damn about backwards compatibility because the only decent game is Halo...

"Personally - I'd see the 360 coming out of the next round as a strong second, with perhaps 2/3rds the sales of the PS3."

Dream on fanboy. Let me guess, you were one of the dopes four years ago posting about how MS was going destroy Sony because "MS has 50 billion" and "Bill always gets what he wants" or other such rubbish.

Re:Broadly agree

[RogueyWon]

If I was a fanboy, I wouldn't have been predicting a second place finish, would I?

As for the "MS games people do have a passion for games" thing, look at stuff like the Flight Simulator series. Hell, look at the fact that they carried on putting out the (generally excellent) Combat Flight Simulator series at a time when major commercial development in the genre was drying up elsewhere. Also look at how they've kept the Mechwarrior franchise alive and well (through both PC and X-Box titles) and even increased its audience (admittedly while upsetting some of the hardcore).

When the original X-Box came out, I was anything but a fan of it. To be honest, I thought it was crap and that its games were boring. However, MS have learned rapidly from mistakes and adapted accordingly during the first generation. Look at the redesign of the controller and the emphasis on RPGs (such as KOTOR and Jade Empire) that has characterised the latter part of the X-Box cycle. It's this kind of rapid adaptibility that I think will let MS leave Nintendo (who tend to stick with their design decisions, even when they've been shown to be mistakes *cough* N64 Cartridges *cough*) in the dust in the longer run and certainly close the gap on Sony.

Re:Broadly agree

[Anonymous Coward]

Bingo.

MS has no chance of stealing Nintendo's or Sony's customers.

The has a very specific and limited demographic. It consists of virtually the entire group of former Dreamcast owners, pc gamers who want to play their pc games on their big screen tv(and talk about the fact online that they are playing games on their big screen tv), and people who like to tell other people they have 'teh most powerful cosole'

The only Sony or Nintendo people even considering buying a 360 are one with enough disposable income to buy multiple systems.

If someone can find an actual Sony or Nintendo owner who will admit to planning on buying a 360 instead of a PS3 or Revo it would be amazing.

Re:Broadly agree

[rAiNsT0rm]

I'm no zealot, but you my friend are way off base. The Nintendo controller is not going to be based around a gimmick. It has been said many times that it is going to be soemthing totally unique in design that will allow everyone to enjoy gaming. I have a feeling it will be either a super-streamlined design with few buttons... if there are buttons at all. It is going to be intuitive, so that even a non-gamer can easily pick it up and play. This has all been stated so far.

At first I thought of a few possibilities: A NES controller with new styling, a touch-pad, a gyro/tilt sensor... but the more I thought about it I don't think any of these will be it. It has been said by Nintendo that the controller is "The Big Gun" so it is most certainly NOT a cheap gimmmick.

Now to take you to task on your statement that access to old games is for the "hardcore"... what, you smokin crack? This move is FOR the casual gamer, and also happens to appeal to all types of gamers. My sister (30-ish non-gamer with kids/family) is already planning on buying one simply so she can play old favorites and her kids can play the newer games and GC titles. She was excited to be able to play Bubble Bobble again, and a number of other old favorites.

You also seemed to miss the fact that Nintendo has already stated they will allow even single person game developers the ability to create content. This is the ace in the hole and most people already forget about this little "feature" While the PS3 and 360 will take major budgets and teams to produce for (which leads to less games over the lifespan and only "safe" games get made - like licensed games, sports, FPS, and some RPG's) the Revolution will get all the indie developers, homebrew crowd, and even new entries... remember shareware and ID? Well Nintendo could potentially be opening the doors to a hundred exclusive "ID's" on top of top-notch first-party titles and some solid third-party offerings.

This race is far from started, let alone in the home stretch.

Re:Broadly agree

[alvinrod]

Microsoft really needed to spread out into the gaming business. Considering that consoles are becoming more and more popular and PC gaming has seen a bit of a decline (and no I'm not predicting its death!) and that Linux is becoming more gamer friendly, Microsoft won't be able to hold claim to PC gaming king for terribly much longer.

Expanding into the game market gave them to opportunity to do some innovative things for the console market. Built-in HD and networking hadn't been done before and allowed for some really nifty gaming experiences. It also allows them to take away some of the market from their competitors.

If Sony had lived up to a lot of the promises that it had made about the PS2 things could be radically different. Interestingly enough, Sony has said some similar things about the PS3. If the rumors that it will have Linux installed out of the box or freely be able to run it are true, that means a PS3 could easily serve as a computer. It wouldn't be a great one, but if it could handle Word Processing, email, and simple things like that, why would anyone need to buy a new Windows PC?

Sony has problems of its own though. It's spent a lot of time and money to make the PS3 and some of the included technologies. In order to compete in the marketplace it has to sell at a lose or the PS3 would be too expensive for most people to go out and buy.

Sony also has several other areas of business that it likes to incorperate into the PS3. Note how they're going to be using the same type of memory stick in the PS3 as they are with the PSP. I wouldn't be surprised if they included some type of music store or tried to include some aspect of their motion picture company into the mix as well (similar to how the PSP can play UMD movies). Sony seems to exist to sell a product so that it can sell other Sony products.

Whether or not all of this interconectivity will work or just piss off consumers remains to be seen. Sony could just have made a video game console, but they've made so much more. The thing used to be a router, can be a DVR if you buy an HD for it, could possible serve as a computer if it runs Linux, and just might make coffee for you if you ask it nicely. The fact that it plays games almost seems like side note. Some have suggested that this all in one feature is geared towards Japanese consumers who have small living spaces and would benefit most from having one piece of hardware that takes care of everything.

Nintendo is trying despirately to make up for past mistakes. Not using CDs or something similar for the Nintendo 64 really hurt them a lot and turned away a lot of developers. They're starting to get some of those back but many are still angry at Nintendo. They've realized some of their mistakes and have tried to rectify them as the article points out.

At the same time, Nintendo can't follow the same model that the other companies use. Nintendo doesn't have a division making a widely used OS or one that sells movies and music to fall back on. They can't make a $500 console, sell it for $300 and hope to stay in business. Sure they've got a nice cash reserve, but that's for when things really turn South.

Because Nintendo doesn't want to look bad by admitting they can't compete on the tech spec level with their competitors, they've adopted a "Game's are where it's at," creed that they at least follow to some degree. More or less it stems from their inability to produce something on the same power level as the PS3 or Xbox 360. They need something to say to make their console look worthy of purchase so they talk about good games and innovation. They've been saying this so long now that whether or not it was true to start with, they now believe it and follow it, to their graves it necessary.

Nintendo has a pretty good shot and doing well with the Revolution. If it launches 3Q 2006 it could be somewhat less powerful than the Xbox 360, but more than capable of producing high quality graphics and at a cheaper price as well. The ability to play games

Re:Broadly agree

[Anonymous Coward]

I plan on buying a 360 on release and a revolution when it comes out. I have no intention of getting a ps3. Sony can suck my ass. The ps1 was a piece of garbage and games on the ps2 looked like ass for years.

Re:Broadly agree

[FLAGGR]

I wouldn't be so sure of the power of the Revolution (er, that sounds weird.) Nintendo has never exactly played up their tech specs that much. For example, the gamecube. It's definantly more powerful than the PS2 (except at flat polygon count, which is pretty irrelevant) and actually in most cases is better than the xbox. While the xbox has bigger numbers, a higher clock speed, the gamecube is designed much better. For example, the xbox uses shared RAM. The gamecube uses very fast 1T-SRAM (although only 24mb of it), their ppc cpu proforms better / mhz than xbox's intel x86 one (although not as much a gap as the ppc mac zealots may say :) ) actually I don't feel like listing off stuff, you get the idea. That's why you get games like metroid prime, RE4, rebel strike etc looking so good. However, the xbox has much better support for shaders. Anyways...

The point is, Nintendo isn't going to pack an gamecube up in a new shiny black box and call it a Revolution.

If it launches 3Q 2006 it could be somewhat less powerful than the Xbox 360
Quite the opposite. If it launches almost a year later, then prices of hardware will have dropped, and new technologies will have arrived, so I would assume they would take advantage of this and make it much more powerful to make up for the time loss. Also, no date has been set yet, last I heard, sometime around E3, was spring 2006 (iwata?)

Re:Broadly agree

[RogueyWon]

"The Nintendo controller is not going to be based around a gimmick. It has been said many times that it is going to be soemthing totally unique in design that will allow everyone to enjoy gaming."

Why do people buy this kind of marketing-talk just because it's from Nintendo. Look at all the ridiculous things MS and Sony have said at various points about their consoles, before they launch. Nintendo have no more claim to credibility. It's not as if they haven't had flops before... remember the Virtual Boy?

And I stand by my point that the mainstream does not care about playing classic games. This is a strange little fiction that some sections of the gaming press have picked up. Go and look at the gaming charts and what do you see? Halo 2, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, World of Warcraft, Gran Turismo 4, the latest version of Madden. When was the last time you saw a classic game collection, even one sold dirt-cheap, for a non-handheld gaming platform in any kind of sales top 10. The collections are there; I could walk into HMV right now, if I wanted, and buy several. But most people just ignore them.

I seriously don't think allowing minor developers onto the system is going to be the answer either. Micro-developer games have been around on the PC for as long as I can remember and it's been many a year since they've had any kind of impact on the major commercial gaming landscape.

Ultimately, mainstream gamers these days have expectations regarding quantity of content and production values. Retro and indie games can't deliver this. It's not a pleasant truth, but the sales figures speak for themselves.

Re:Broadly agree

[RogueyWon]

You make some good points here, but I'm going to take issue with you on the whole price-point topic.

You see, while the Revolution's launch price will probably be less than the 360's, don't forget that the 360 will have had the better part of a year on sale by the Revolution's launch. Console prices often get heavily reduced at around this point. I would not be in the slightest bit surprised if MS lowered the price of the 360 to the same as the Revolution's specifically to coincide with the Revolution's launch. That's what I'd be doing in their shoes.

Also, I think the price of the console is vasty over-rated as a determining factor for sales. The PS2 has been consistently the most expensive of the current gen consoles during this cycle, yet it's outsold the competitors by crazy amounts. Game prices are arguably more important, and Nintendo are usually the most expensive here.

Re:Broadly agree

[alvinrod]

Quite the opposite. If it launches almost a year later, then prices of hardware will have dropped, and new technologies will have arrived, so I would assume they would take advantage of this and make it much more powerful to make up for the time loss. Also, no date has been set yet, last I heard, sometime around E3, was spring 2006 (iwata?)

First of all, I think Nintendo is using the extra time to make the cost of existing technology go down. Moore's law suggests that in 18 months transistor count will roughly double resulting in more powerful hardware. On the flip-side, the same technology that we have today will cost less to in the future. I think that Nintendo is looking at something on par with today's technology (or that at the release of the Xbox 360) that will be somewhat cheaper to produce in the future. Nintendo has never really cared about how many raw polygons that their console can push or how many Tflops it's capable of producing. That's why I don't think they're aiming any higher than technologically on par with the power of the Xbox 360.

I won't dispute that the GameCube is capable of pretty games. I think that Metroid Prime looked better than Halo and most other Xbox games from a artistic design. I don't know about how many polies each was pushing, but I really don't care. The fact that the GC and Xbox are superior to the PS2 rings pretty true, but that didn't stop anyone from making GT4. The key concept is how easy it is for designers to reach the full potential of a console. I've heard stories about how messed up and complicated the PS2's emotion engine could be, and how some people aren't happy with the difficulty of developing for the Xbox 360. I've never heard that Nintendo was either wonderful or horrendous to develop for so I can't comment on the ease of making a game on their platforms. No matter what though, it does seem like some developers (like those for Metroid and RE4) did find out how to get the most out of the Cube.

The spring '06 date you're thinking of is the widely expected release date of the PS3. Although some have speculated at later date, March of next year is what Sony has generally been saying. Most sources also point to Nintendo releasing their console 3Q '06, so about 6 months after the PS3 and a year after the Xbox 360. To your credit though, early reports from Nintendo suggested that they were aiming for a release date of that right around the PS3. At E3, however, they changed their tune and decided to release it on their own sweet time. At this point things are really up in the air. The only for sure date (time frame really) is for the 360. Nintendo has been pretty vauge, and I read an article on GameSpot that said the PS3 might not be released until 2007.

Re:Broadly agree

[Anonymous Coward]

Gamecube has been historically the easiest to develop for, some developers are rumoured to use the gamecube devkits to prototype ps2 games, because of the ease of use. The playstation 2 (and 1, and psp) uses more obscure hardware, and the vectorunits on it cause lots of developing pains for anyone but the most experienced ps2 developer, because a lot of things have to be coded in assembly. The xbox is just your standard PC pretty much, which makes porting games from PC easier.

Re:Broadly agree

[Anonymous Coward]

"and I read an article on GameSpot that said the PS3 might not be released until 2007."

Sony hasn't changed their plans for a Spring '06 PS3 launch.

The 2007 PS3 launch rumor is from an analyst who sees things going so badly for MS and the 360 that he guessed that the Sony had no reason to put the PS3 out and it would be better just to wait for manufacturing costs to continue to lower the cost of building PS3s. The PS2 is, amazing, accelerating in sales and is far outpacing the original Playstation.

The thing the analyst doesn't really get is MS and the 360 is pretty much irrelevant to Sony's PS3 plans. Despite the fact that MS is a major name in desktop and server segment of computing, they are just a bit player in the console market.

The PS3 is going to be on the shelves sometime between March and May of 2006.

Re:Broadly agree

[Anonymous Coward]

Nintendo has a good chance at getting a more powerful system out. Why? When designing a console, you can't just slap all the good parts together and call it a night. Thing's have to be balanced. If there is a bottleneck in your system, then games won't be able to take full advantage of power that you have to pay for. Nintendo has always done this very well. Point in case: Like the parent said, the gamecube can do graphics just as well as the xbox, and even though they're selling it for 99$, they're not selling at a lose, which Microsoft is at a higher price point. This is because MS took a pc, put it in a black and green box and sold it as a console. PC's are full of bottlenecks, due to their open nature. It's very hard to get anywhere near a new graphics cards theoretical speeds, because of bottlenecks. Sony has been fairly good with choosing their hardware, but unfortunantly to this date can't produce something that is easy to program for. According to a recent ArsTechnica article examining the hardware and talking with developers, both Sony and MS have made a few silly choices, and things like their multicore and SPE technologies are turning out to be worth alot less than suspected. I can only assume Nintendo will make the right decisions and come out with a fantastic piece of hardware that will be easy to develop for, as they always have. (No VirtualBoy jokes :) )

Re:Broadly agree

[Anonymous Coward]

The retro sonic collection was definitely top ten (in UK) at launch. But your point is valid.

Nintendo is hoping to attract not the gaming mainstream with this move, but the ex- and even non- gaming mainstream.
They're not wrong about games like Halo, GTA, WoW and GT4 being very unfriendly to non-gamers and people who've been out of the gaming loop*. those games are either very complicated or difficult to control. And mostly violent, which is a turn-off to some people.
I think they're wrong that S/NES games are going to bring in non-gamers though - the graphics are so lo-res and abstract that it's difficult to understand what's going on if you're not used to it.
What they should be focusing on for is simple, one button stuff with clear, modern graphics. Plently of puzzlers.

As someone who is pretty clearly a gamer I'm not too pleased that I'm no longer their target audience. But I have my PC games to console me.

*although Halo is about as non-gamer friendly as an FPS gets, which is why it's popular IMHO

Re:Broadly agree

[rAiNsT0rm]

I'm not sure you know who your trying to argue with, but I have been a member of the Sony PS2 media as well as a playtester since SNES. I'm no Nintendo fanboy spouting garbage.

First off, what do you think about Katamari Damacy? That was basically a one man idea/indie developed game that did pretty damn well, wasn't it? I could go through at least 50 more in just the last 5 years over a number of systems. Snood must only appeal to "hardcore" gamers then too... but wait my grandfather has a copy and so does almost everyone. You're an idiot.

You also have a lack of grey matter if you truly think the Revolution Controller isn't going to be a massively unique design that takes gaming by the balls and twists. Notice how they named it "Revolution" the name is all based on the revolutionary controller. If you think that is just "marketing" you are sadly mistaken. Naming an entire system after a revolutionary designed controller and then not coming through is not even an option, unless monkeys with hot grits in their pants are your marketing department. The controller will be amazing, you seem to forget Nintendo revolutionized controllers to begin with: Game and Watch (the d-pad), The SNES (the shoulder button), the Analog stick (N64), the most ergonomic controllers and well built... gee, they must be full of shit on this new one.

I love how you bring up games like Halo, GTA, WoW, GT4 as being mainstream games. THOSE ARE ALL HARDCORE GAMER GAMES! No mom/child is playing GT4 to unwind and have some fun. No regular joe is playing WoW. Halo and GTA have a target audience of immature teens to early 20's... which is most likely your demographic but far from the "casual" gamer demographic. Wake up!

You have no basis to even try to argue your paper thin case, I'd love for you to keep trying though as it gives me great pleasure to pick apart your fallacies and attempts. Next.

Re:Broadly agree

[Why's_This_Fish_So_B]

"First of all, I'm not so sure that MS want the 360 to be a Windows-gaming-killer."

I think the goal is to allow developers to write once and deploy on both Windows and XBox.

http://biz.gamedaily.com/features.asp?article_id=9 950&filter=interview

"CD: With XNA, which incorporates both DirectX and the Xbox/Xbox 360 Development Kits, we're making the tools to make it easier to make games for Microsoft's gaming platforms. We're looking to the game development community to surprise gamers with new ideas of what they can do with these tools--and of course, we're helping developers build games that can take advantage of the huge power of the next generation of hardware, both Xbox 360 and Longhorn."

Re:Broadly agree

[despisethesun]

I wouldn't count on the 360's early launch giving it much of a head start. It didn't help Sega, and the Dreamcast was a pretty solid console overall, just like the Saturn before it. This is especially true with the announcement that the 360 likely won't have HD-DVD capability at launch but will get it down the road. The most hardcore will likely pick it up at launch, but the majority of gamers will probably take the same "wait and see" approach they always have. I don't know that it will necessarily benefit Nintendo, but it won't help MS.

Re:Broadly agree

[Chosen Reject]

While I agree with everything you've said, one thing bothers me. The name of the company is id, not ID. ID is short for Identification or Intelligent Design. id is for Frued's description of part of the human psyche. id software spells it with a lower case all the time, so it's not even Id, but certainly not ID. Sorry, just a pet peeve of mine.

Re:Broadly agree

[Kelbear]

My brain probably farted, but I think it was spelled iD originally? I could be wrong.

Meh, anyway, I'm sure no slashdotter in the games section, reading an article about game consoles, referring to game companies will consider ID to refer to God. (If someone wanted to refer to GOD games, they'd just use those 3 letters:P)

Re:Broadly agree

[rAiNsT0rm]

You are looking at it from a gamers eye though, to you 2D and S/NES is hard to distinguish and whatnot... to a gamer who hasn't touched a console since the S/NES or even Atari it is quite an easy transition.

Last Christmas the number one selling game was the retro Atari/NES/Sega controllers that contained 6-10 games. They were all mostly 8-bit games and no one had a hard time of it, and the sales didn't suffer one bit. Those controllers outsold ALL videogame sales for the entire christmas season. They all went to the non-gamer, nostalgic, casual, and kid/family market which in total made up more buying dollars than anything for PC or a console... quite a big chunk for Nintendo to grab since the PS3 and 360 are most certainly not going for them.

Re:Broadly agree

[RogueyWon]

I wasn't necessarily referring to any sales benefit from launching a year early, although I do believe that having a Christmas all to themselves won't hurt MS. I was talking more about the fact that console prices tend to be reviewed and reduced regularly throughout their life-cycle, with the first big price cut (usually the biggest of all) coming about a year after launch.

We've already seen Bill Gates promise to launch Halo 3 in the week the PS3 comes out, to try to steal Sony's thunder. Personally, I don't see that one working. However, by giving the 360 a big price cut in the week the Revolution comes out, MS could, at a single stroke, decimate Nintendo's sales by taking away one of their biggest selling points. Factor in the fact that the 360 will be a "mature" console by this point, with a large-ish games lineup, and things could look very grim for Nintendo indeed.

Re:Broadly agree

[rAiNsT0rm]

Heh, in all my years I've never been hit by a Game Grammer Nazi =) I'll consider this my first. Duly Noted... I was typing quick and didn't even pause to think of any alternate meanings in my capitalization choice.

Re:Broadly agree

[(A)*(B)!0_-]

"(who tend to stick with their design decisions, even when they've been shown to be mistakes *cough* N64 Cartridges *cough*)"

How did Nintendo stick to their design decisions? Assuming that the N64 should have used CD-based games and that was a mistake, it was only shown by the success of the Playstation. The Gamecube [perhaps you don't know this] does not use cartridges. How did they stick to a design after said design was "shown to be a mistake" again?

Re:Broadly agree

[Chosen Reject]

This nazi-ism was brought to you by a stupid cousin of mine who wouldn't even believe me when I showed him the website. So like I said, it's just a small pet peeve of mine.

Re:Broadly agree

[MilenCent]

On the Nintendo front (and this is where I get modded down by the zealots),

You should not be modded down for stating you think Nintendo won't succeed. That question is up in the air, you may very well be right, and in any case you're entitled to your opinion.

But, I think you should be modded down for this phrase. It's a defensive tactic against mod-downs seen a lot on Slashdot recently (pioneered by Microsoft defenders) -- "Only someone who was a zealot would mod me down!" It was a harsh note in an otherwise interesting comment.

Re:Broadly agree

[alvinrod]

But you forget that Nintendo will have had over a year to develop games for their console to ensure a strong launch. Remember that Nintendo is also a software company (i.e. they make games for their own hardware). It doesn't make sense that their development teams wouldn't have had access to some really really alpha hardware.

From some rumors that I've heard they want to have a Mario game, Metroid Prime 3, and a new Super Smash Brothers game ready for system launch. Add in the fact that other companies can port existing games developed for other consoles over to the revolution in the months leading up the its release.

Nintendo has traditionally been weak on release titles and it's one of the things they've learned the hard way and are trying to fix. Assuming the console also launches with the ability to download old NES, SNES, and N64 games and they've already got a huge library of games available for release.

What would really be interesting is if they offered a device that would accept NES, SNES, and N64 carts. I'm assuming if the Revolution can emulate or outright run those games from some downloaded format, it might be able to do something similar with the actual carts. Just think of the device as something similar to accessories for the Cube and SNES that let you play GBA and GB games.

Microsoft will probably only offer a price cut if it becomes practical to do so. They're more than likely already selling each console at a loss, so it seems unlikely they'd go much lower. If 360's aren't flying off the shelf because people waited for the PS3 and/or Revolution, the manufacturing cost won't drop much if at all. Considering they probably wouldn't be able to drop the price even close to $50, I don't think they could come close to the Revolution which will most likely debut for $200 or less.

Whether or not Bungie can deliver a Halo 3 worth playing at the time of the PS3 launch remains to be seen. They could possibly rush something out the door, but I don't think it would be as good as it possibly could. My honest opinion is that a lot of potential Xbox 360 customers are going to be waiting for Halo 3 or another killer app as well news about future HD-DVD capabilities.

Re:Broadly agree

[joshsisk]

And I stand by my point that the mainstream does not care about playing classic games.

Atari sold 500,000+ of their "Atari Flashback" (a $30 box that has like 10 atari games) devices in 6 months... some people must like classic gaming.

Re:Broadly agree

[joshsisk]

I love how you bring up games like Halo, GTA, WoW, GT4 as being mainstream games. THOSE ARE ALL HARDCORE GAMER GAMES!

I can't agree with you there... the GTA games & Halo are the best selling games on their consoles... Everyone I know with a PS2 has at least one GTA game, for example. I don't see how they can really be considered non-mainstream if they are the best-sellers.

Re:Broadly agree

[Idealius]

lolwned.

Re:Broadly agree

[rohlfinator]

"You see, while the Revolution's launch price will probably be less than the 360's, don't forget that the 360 will have had the better part of a year on sale by the Revolution's launch. Console prices often get heavily reduced at around this point. I would not be in the slightest bit surprised if MS lowered the price of the 360 to the same as the Revolution's specifically to coincide with the Revolution's launch."

Sony never dropped the price of the PS2 until Microsoft lowered the MSRP of the Xbox to $200. If MS is taking a loss on the 360's hardware, chances are that a price drop won't be financially feasible after only six to nine months. Remember, Microsoft is trying to recoup their losses on the 360. If software sales are slow during launch, which is entirely possible given the $60 price, they might not be able to justify a price drop so soon.

As for the effect of console pricing, it seems to be kind of unpredictable, but it's definitely there. The GameCube's lower price point may have been a disadvantage early on, since consumers didn't view it as a technological equal to the PS2 and Xbox. But when it's price dropped under $100, sales skyrocketed. $100 seems to be a "magic number" for consumers, while at any point above that, they assume that price is equivalent to value. It would be interesting to see a study done on the economics of the console market, that's for sure.

Re:Broadly agree

[rohlfinator]

Moderately high sales don't always mean mainstream. GTA and Halo are targeted squarely at the 17-24-year-old male gamer. Outside of that range, they don't really sell all that well (besides to kids who want to appear cool, I suppose). Truly mainstream games (the ones that sell 10 million or more) transcend age, gender, even genre barriers.

Take a look at the 20 best-selling games. Most of them have very massive appeal: The Sims, Mario, Tetris, Pokemon, Myst. Sure, there are a few "gamer" games in there, like Half-Life and Final Fantasy, but for the most part they were purchased by people who don't fit the stereotypical "gamer" profile. People who are more likely to play solitaire or Minesweeper than Starcraft. Those are the "mainstream".

I suppose you could argue that GTA is relatively mainstream, but Halo really appeals only to FPS fans. While older adults and females might make up a smaller percentage of the current industry, a game can never be truly mainstream unless it reaches those markets. Contrary to what the Internet might lead us to believe, the typical "gamer" makes up a small percentage of the potential audience for video games.

Re:Broadly agree

[blackicye]

"Also look at how they've kept the Mechwarrior franchise alive and well (through both PC and X-Box titles) and even increased its audience (admittedly while upsetting some of the hardcore).

If by keeping a franchise alive you mean exhuming its rotting corpse and warming it over to serve to the masses, then yes, MS has done a great job keeping the Battletech franchise "alive."

MS destroyed the Battletech franchise. Mechassault and its sequel were mediocre at best, and their attempts to replicate the past successes on the PC failed even more spectacularly.

Re:Broadly agree

[Anonymous Coward]

Hate to break it to you, but you're a Nintendo fanboi.

Stop spouting garbage. The N64 controller was a piece of shit and the D-Pad was a poor replacement for the joystick or keyboard.

You haven't even seen this "Revolutionary" new controller. You're either a fanboy or some kind of corporate shill.

Back to the closet with you.

Re:Broadly agree

[__aailob1448]

I liked your comments but I'm disappointed that you would even mention Snood.

  It's nothing but a cheap ripoff of Taito's Puzzle Bobble series. It's therefore *NOT* an example of a "one man idea/indie developed game"

Re:Broadly agree

[__aailob1448]

Thanks for writing down what I was thinking. Mod Parent up.

Re:Broadly agree

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd be in total agreement with everything you say, if it weren't for the fact that Nintendo fans *do* seriously abuse the moderation system and are well known for doing so. Look through the moderation on this thread and on the last few relating to Nintendo. Notice how all the critical posts, no matter how well reasoned, get modded down, usually using "over-rated" to avoid meta-moderation. Then note how every "OMG NINTENDO ROCK" post, no matter how redundant, gets modded insightful.

Re:Broadly agree

[MilenCent]

I'd be in total agreement with everything you say, if it weren't for the fact that Nintendo fans *do* seriously abuse the moderation system and are well known for doing so.

Hmmm.... there does seem to be a bit of Nintendo drum-beating here. Overall I'm on Nintendo's side in these things, but it does seem to be a little disproportionate to what's being said in the higher-rated comments. To be sure however, we'd have to set up an experiment with a control, which I suspect would be difficult in a case like this. It's hard to prove these kinds of biases.

I'd probably chalk it up to Nintendo fans being the type who'd obsessively read a Slashdot article like this. Nintendo's the one of the big three who's in the most trouble, and throughout their history they've had some beloved games, so more people have a fondness for them on Slashdot than, say, Microsoft. I'd tend to go with this explanation, that the ones who care enough to mod in a story like this are the ones who are fretting the most.

That said....

I think my original point, that talking to the moderators smacks of gaming the system, still holds. Plastic (a news commentary site with a Slashdot-like format) even has a special negative moderation, Modappeal, to use on people who do things like this.

Re:Broadly agree

[webzombie]

You also seemed to miss the fact that Nintendo has already stated they will allow even single person game developers the ability to create content. This is the ace in the hole and most people already forget about this little "feature" While the PS3 and 360 will take major budgets and teams to produce for (which leads to less games over the lifespan and only "safe" games get made - like licensed games, sports, FPS, and some RPG's) the Revolution will get all the indie developers, homebrew crowd, and even new entries... remember shareware and ID? Well Nintendo could potentially be opening the doors to a hundred exclusive "ID's" on top of top-notch first-party titles and some solid third-party offerings.

Lets not forget the reason the console makers "give away" their consoles is so they can MAKE money on their CONTENT!

As most excellent point! I totally (not as in Bill and Ted) agree. :)

Re:Broadly agree

[rAiNsT0rm]

OK, well to illustrate my point: Go out on the street and ask the first 10 people of any age range what Taito's Puzzle Bobble is and if they have ever played it, then ask those same 10 what Snood is.

The average gamer has no idea what puzzle bobble is/was. I never stated that it was original, just that it was a grass roots indie effort from the past few years that took off and has made millions. See, no one but hardcore gamers care if a game is a clone of another, they just want a fun accessable game.

Re:Broadly agree

[joshsisk]

According to that same list you linked, the top three selling PS2 games are:

Grand Theft Auto: Vice City (PS2 - 8.5 Million)
Gran Turismo 3 (PS2 - 7 Million)

And on Xbox:

Halo 2 (Xbox - 6.3 Million)

Sales that high are pretty mainstream, I'm sorry. If a CD sold that many copies (even in the years before file-sharing), it would be considered a MASSIVE, genre-bridging success. There would be no way it could be considered obscure or hardcore. And CDs cost less than games.

I'm not saying your wrong that they are "hardcore" games in that they appeal to "gamers" and not "moms & dads", I just think that obviously there must be more people now who are into games enough to be considered more than just staid ol' moms and dads who can't handle anything more complex than pong or solitaire...

The moms and dads who have young kids now, after all, probably grew up playing NES and Genesis games, so they are probably able to handle more than just minesweeper or the Sims. Perhaps the definition of what games only appeal to "hardcore" gamers simply needs to be adjusted, based on the growing acceptance of videogames into the culture.

Re:Broadly agree

[MrCopilot]

and yes, I know you can play UT2004 on Linux. When you can play every other game on my shelf on it, I might start to listen

All the games on my Linux shelf play. Kinda like saying I won't buy a GameCube because I have a shelf full of PS2 titles. I have both GC & PS2, Linux & Windows.Believe it or not there is enough Gaming Variety to fill all four shelves. Most the Linux Games are FOSS. Some are Emulated Windows.

You want games for Linux, BUY games for Linux. Let Developers know they are losing money by not porting. Better Yet, try some OSS Apps. Once you start using them, you begin to hate sitting in front of your Windows Box.

Re:Broadly agree

[rohlfinator]

Don't get me wrong, I agree that Halo and GT3 are definitely not obscure, but I wouldn't define them as mainstream. It sounds like we're defining the term in different ways. Personally, I believe the current industry is still young enough that "mainstream" can't yet be determined by sales of individual games.

Take your music analogy, for example. The percentage of "gamers" buying video games is a lot higher than the percentage of "music buffs" buying music. Most music buyers wouldn't consider themselves "hardcore" music fans. The games industry is gradually expanding, but currently the share of hardcore players is disproportionally large compared to other entertainment media. Gaming is still very confined to the stereotypical late-teens/early-twenties male buyer, and the top sales charts reflect that buyer segment. In contrast, top music lists feature anything from Mariah Carey to Ludacris, from Weezer to Toby Keith. There's a much broader audience that can't be pinned into a small market segment, and most pop music doesn't appeal to the so-called "hardcore".

As for total game vs. CD sales, simple number comparisons don't really work, mainly due to the sheer volume of different musicians versus the relatively small number of games. If you like country music, there are literally thousands of artists to choose from (some of them more appealing than others, probably), but if you're an Xbox owner who likes FPS's, you'll buy Halo. There are a few other choices, but not nearly as many.

Re:Broadly agree

[manno]

Linux is becoming more gamer friendly
ha... haha.... hahahahahahahaahahah holy crap I needed that. Nothing like a bit of zealotry induced blindness to keep the spirits up.

Install Unreal Tournament on Linux, and then install it on Windows. Which one was more "friendly"?

Now go install "Battlefield 2" on Linux, and then on Windows.

Now go develop a game using the DirectX suite. Now go develop a game using Linux. Which platform is more "friendly" to develop on?

Quote:
"If the rumors that it will have Linux installed out of the box or freely be able to run it are true, that means a PS3 could easily serve as a computer. It wouldn't be a great one, but if it could handle Word Processing, email, and simple things like that, why would anyone need to buy a new Windows PC?"

And this same exact idea couldn't apply to the original Xbox why?...

I own one console, a PS2, and I wish it was a Gamecube. GTA is a game that bores me, what can I say? If I'm going to spend my free time on a couch in front of a TV it's going to be with my friends, and we'll probably be playing "Smash Brothers". Hell we play "Testris Dr. Mario", and "Warios Woods" on the Super NES more than the PS2.

If your going to buy a piece of computing equipment to play games Console or otherwise get the one that lets you play the games you want to play. If Tux Racer floats your boat by all means just get Linux. If an endless stream of poorly crafted AI enemies are your cup of tea go play Doom 3 or GTA. If you like party games that are easy to pick up and fun to play I highly recommend Gamecube. If you like multiplayer FPS's get a Windows PC.

"Battlefield 2" awesome game by the way, first time in years I was looking forward to going home and playing a video game. It also runs on fairly modest hardware. I'm running it on a stock emachines m6805 Laptop, and an 2200 Athlon XP with a Radeon 9550 the crappy one with the 64bit bus. I know EA a a huge evil corp, but I'll be damned if they didn't grab a good developer and publish a great game here... /plug

-manno

Re:Broadly agree

[buffer-overflowed]

Just to put this into perspective: Pokemon sold 80 million units between the 3 original versions worldwide. About 24 million copies per version, the only difference between the versions being cart color and a few pokemon.

To put that into perspective, a copy of pokemon was sold for each person that voted in the 1996 US presidential election.

Re:Broadly agree

[buffer-overflowed]

Katamari was made by NAMCO, not some indy developer. Snood was on the PC, where a lot of shareware and indy titles end up. The only real indy game I can think of that hit consoles in recent memory was Alien Hominid.

GTA/Halo are mainstream games. They're not UNIVERSAL APPEAL games. GTA has always played very well to the casual gamer, that hasn't changed. The problem with the two that prevents them from becoming the enormous crazes that things like PacMan, Pokemon, Mario, and Tetris were lies in their content.

Re:Broadly agree

[joshsisk]

I agree with much of this, but in the context of the great-great-grandparent's statements about the kind of games that spur console sales (and indeed in general), I feel it's somewhat ridiculous to dismiss games like GTA which are the top-selling games for their system... and I still don't think GTA is a hardcore gamer game... it's very simple to pick up and play, simpler than the Sims, for sure.

Re:Broadly agree

[Psiven]

Good point and well made. I just wanted to mention that MS is suppoting small developers though with some kind of "Arcade" section built into the 360 dashboard.

Re:Broadly agree

[rAiNsT0rm]

No Namco did not "make" Katamari Damacy. One man's idea "made" katamari damacy, please do a seconds worth of research at least before attempting to sound like you know whats up... or trying to discredit my counter... it only makes you look worse. ...and, umm, the developer is the one who controls the content and it is funny how the titles that are "mainstream" and "universal" all point to Nintendo... as I stated. These are the ones that bring in the big bucks and keep 'em comin.

Re:Broadly agree

[buffer-overflowed]

Keita Takahashi is the guy's name. He is a Namco employee, and was a Namco employee when he started work on Katamari. Namco employees worked on every aspect of the game, from sound to art to the box design. Hence, Katamari is from... wait for it... NAMCO. If we're going to use the "one man's idea" standard then just about EVERY game is "indy" because most of them begin as "one designers idea".

Re:Broadly agree

[rAiNsT0rm]

I'm well aware of Keita and that he is a NAMCO employee... but this game was all about him and his idea. Totally different from how almost all other Namco titles are created/developed. He totally created the game outside of NAMCO and it was actually a Senior project of his! Here is a link with the full story since you still want to argue and think you can show me up (This is translated from Game Developer Magazine: December 2004): http://www.cs.northwestern.edu/~hunicke/blog/conte nt/kdpostmort.htm

Now, want to continue or are you ready to concede? You are trying to argue with someone who has been a part of this industry for over 4 years... I'm well aware of Namco, KD, and the stories and people behind it and probably 1000 other titles... care to try me further?

Re:Broadly agree

[redstarmedia]

While I agree almost whole-heartedly with you on your post, I have to ask you what YOU are smoking! Do you not remember what happened with the Dreamcast? A major factor in why the DC went under was the fact that EVERYONE could code for it. It was based off freakin' Windows CE, for christs sake! IMHO, x360 will definently be the market leader, but not because of the games, but for the cludge of features and add-ons that you have! FREE Live accounts?!?!? That's amazing! For sheer proccessing power, PS3 will be the way to go, but in a digital online world, you can't beat the market that MS managed to corner (just like every other market they get into) with thier live service.

Re:Broadly agree

[buffer-overflowed]

It was a Senior project at a Namco sponsored university program, which he was involved in(so I guess "his" isn't entirely wrong). The models you roll up were anyway. The programming framework, level designs, music, and what not were all done by Namco proper.

Takahashi, like such designers as Miyamoto, went to an art school. He credits his senior sculpture classes for part of the idea.

Go read his GDC interviews. He goes into detail. Years of working at Namco w/o finding a project he liked so he started his own.

It's not an uncommon story in game development(or software development in general). The only odd thing is that Namco gave him the resources. A few devs do this, but Namco hasn't been known for it. So yes, it's a Namco game. Everything about it is drenched in Namco from start to finish. Thus, it isn't indy. He did not take a tech demo out there and procure funding and then find a publisher. He did it all internal to Namco.

You don't call Pikmin, Mario, Zelda, Black&White and a whole slew of games indy, do you? Of course not. Even though they're "one guy" and his ideas.

Right, right, I'm sure you've been in "the industry" for 4 years.

Re:Broadly agree

[UberMenchier]

I don't know hardly anyone with a GameCube. And most of the few people I knew that did, sold it. I guess it just depends on your circle of friends.

Personally, I have avoided Nintendo like the plague simply because their games are derived (perhaps no more that other consoles, but still...) and they have what I still consider cartoony graphics. Their colors are too bright and too few, even in "scary or suspenseful" games.

I believe the key issue is being overlooked here: console power. The PS3 will be 2x more powerful than the 360 and 15x more powerful than the revolution. Yes, 360 and PS3 may slug it out, but Nintendo has a rude awakening coming.

Only time will tell, but I think Nintendo should stick to what it's good at: Handhelds.

Cheaper Games?

[antifood]

You know, if Nintendo comes out of the gate with games that are significantly cheaper (at least 10 dollars) than the Xbox's 60 price tag... I can't see many parents justifying the additional cost. Hell, I can't see myself logically justifying the additional cost.

Re:Cheaper Games?

[RogueyWon]

Except that Nintendo games in the current generation have, at least here in the UK, been consistently more expensive than games for the PS2 and X-Box and consistently less likely to be included in multi-buy special offers.

Don't hold your breath.

Re:Cheaper Games?

[Xugumad]

Assuming the $60 price tag is even right, I'd be extremely skeptical that's anything except an initially high price, for launch. Xbox games in the UK started off at something ridiculous like $80 each, and then rapidly dropped to be inline with other games (err, about $60. But remember, we're not being ripped off here, goodness no).

Re:Cheaper Games?

[Judecca]

This is true. Also Nintendo is known to charge more per copy for licensing than MS and Sony.

THE GOLDEN RULE FOR THIS TOPIC

[rokzy]

please bear in mind that Nintendo is the only profitable game company of these 3. no "Nintendo is dying" claims please.

Re:THE GOLDEN RULE FOR THIS TOPIC

[RogueyWon]

Read my post. Specifically, the last few lines of the last "major" paragraph. Profitability now does not necessarily translate into future profitability. Ask anybody who knows anything about business.

Microsoft and Sony can *afford* to be unprofitable for a while. In the case of MS's games division, this has been a deliberate strategy to get market share.

Re:THE GOLDEN RULE FOR THIS TOPIC

[rokzy]

it wasn't specifically aimed at your post, should have been a stand-alone comment.

but anyway, I'll bet Nintendo can afford to be profitable far longer than Sony/MS can afford to be unprofitable ;-)

Nintendo isn't about to disappear just because it doesn't have to biggest bank balance.

Re:THE GOLDEN RULE FOR THIS TOPIC

[dogbowl]

Also, please keep in mind that ALL innovations in controllers have been due in large part to Nintendo. Analoge controls, shoulder buttons, the freakin' directional pad, rumble, and so on.

Don't dismiss the Revolution controller so quickly...

Re:THE GOLDEN RULE FOR THIS TOPIC

[interiot]

But the only reason MS is unprofitable now is because they're investing in future market share. They wouldn't do it otherwise.

Nintendo doesn't seem to be investing in the future. Just the opposite, their main selling point is that they're profiting from the past. Less investment now gives you profits right now, but gives you a future where there's no demand for your product.

Re:THE GOLDEN RULE FOR THIS TOPIC

[BlackCobra43]

Yeah, I'm sure the reason why Nintendo plonked down such a huge amount of cash in R&D (come on, how else do you explain stable sales with 75% less profits without a lawsuit anywhere?)....because they aren't investing in the future.
No siree.

Re:THE GOLDEN RULE FOR THIS TOPIC

[RogueyWon]

Oh, I absolutely agree that you have a point here. However, these innovations were made standard at a time when Nintendo had significantly more market presence than they do now. More recently, we've seen the real control innovation coming from outside Nintendo, with the likes of the Eye-toy and the popularity of dance-mat gaming.

Re:THE GOLDEN RULE FOR THIS TOPIC

[rokzy]

MS is selling at a loss.

you think if MS gets lots of market share then ramps its prices to start making money that it will keep its market share?

Re:THE GOLDEN RULE FOR THIS TOPIC

[(A)*(B)!0_-]

I guess you've forgotten the Nintendo Power Pad.

Re:THE GOLDEN RULE FOR THIS TOPIC

[Txiasaeia]

The Gamecube has a larger global marketshare than the Xbox. You make it sound as if they're chugging along trying to catch up with Sony and Microsoft. I'll give you the fact that Nintendo isn't as big as it used to be, but that in no way means that the innovations of the Revo will be cast to the side because nobody will use it.

Re:THE GOLDEN RULE FOR THIS TOPIC

[shoptroll]

Just to add to this, Nintendo has been around longer than either compnay (at least 100 years) as they started as a playing card maker. They still produce Hanafuda cards and others to this day.

Nintendo as a company isn't going anywhere.

Re:THE GOLDEN RULE FOR THIS TOPIC

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to the bizzaro alternate reality MS fanboys have created for themselves to deal with the xbox marketplace failure.

It was bad enough that they were given a GIANT PUBLIC ASS REAMING by Sony in the console market with hardware that was two years older and around half the price to manufacture.

But the fact that 'a kiddie console' like the GameCube is raking in profits while beating 'teh most powerful' xbox is just too much for the twenty-something badass clowns with lots of 'X's in their pseudonyms that make up the bulk of the xbox userbase. The humiliation of getting beat by Nintendo is just too much to deal with. A less painful delusional fake reality is the only option for the diehard xbox fan.

Re:THE GOLDEN RULE FOR THIS TOPIC

[assassinator42]

The eye-toy isn't really innovative. That is, the idea of controlling stuff on screen using video of yourself is innovative, but Sony didn't think of it. I believe that was Intel. Intel Play Me2Cam was released in 1999, and sounds like it does the same sort of stuff as the eye toy. http://support.intel.com/support/intelplay/me2cam/ sb/cs-020521.htm

Re:THE GOLDEN RULE FOR THIS TOPIC

[Anonymous Coward]

What you're failing to consider here is momentum.

The X-Box came from nowhere to basically end up in a rough tie with the Gamecube. The X-Box was never going to be a PS2 beater - MS openly admitted that it was really just geared towards establishing some market share. The Gamecube, on the other hand, represents a dramatic loss of market share for Nintendo, indicative of a disastrous decline from the days of the SNES.

As numerous other posters have pointed out, current profits are pretty much meaningless while we're on the verge of a new console market. The console wars are essentially wars of attrition. If MS can stand making a loss on the X-Box long enough to undercut Nintendo and eat their market share, they can open the door to big profits in the future. Nintendo are living on past glories and doing nothing to safeguard their market share in the future.

Re:THE GOLDEN RULE FOR THIS TOPIC

[Anonymous Coward]

Go back to teamxbox clown.

Xbox fanboy "why the xbox wasn't really a failure' posts are a big hit there.

Re:THE GOLDEN RULE FOR THIS TOPIC

[Anonymous Coward]

please bear in mind that Nintendo is the only profitable game company of these 3.

Myth. Sony has profited far more than Nintendo has. Yes Sony has posted a loss in the past 2 quarters, but Nintendo's posted quarterly losses before as well.

Re:THE GOLDEN RULE FOR THIS TOPIC

[PeelBoy]

That sounds about right, but I just want to point out that the XBox had nothing to do with Nintendo loseing market share. It was all PS and PS2.

Re:THE GOLDEN RULE FOR THIS TOPIC

[TechniMyoko]

Also, please keep in mind that ALL innovations in controllers have been due in large part to Nintendo. Analoge controls, shoulder buttons, the freakin' directional pad, rumble, and so on.

Everything that you listed except for the dpad was done before, and Nintendo copied. And Nintendo didnt do the first dual analog, clickable analog, integrated force feedback, eyetoy, steel battalion, light guns, etc etc

Re:THE GOLDEN RULE FOR THIS TOPIC

[I(rispee_I(reme]

And the Gameboy Camera, spiritual ancestor of the Eye-toy.

Re:THE GOLDEN RULE FOR THIS TOPIC

[TechniMyoko]

The Gamecube has a larger global marketshare than the Xbox

Myth. XBOX has a larger global marketshare than cube.

Re:THE GOLDEN RULE FOR THIS TOPIC

[Anonymous Coward]

Bzzzt.

Not only does the GameCube have a larger worldwide marketshare than the Xbox, the Xbox is going to fall significantly farther into last place now that MS has had to end the life of the console so soon.

Nintendo will most likely end up with a five million or so lead on MS by the time the GameCube stops being sold.

Re:THE GOLDEN RULE FOR THIS TOPIC

[RogueyWon]

For the most part, this is true.

I do get the feeling that Nintendo looked at the gaming world as the SNES neared the end of its lifespan and liked what they saw. Sega had put up a good fight, but they'd been beaten by a moderate margin in the "set top" console wars and been utterly vanquished in the handheld arena. Nintendo had a huge lineup of third party developers who, they thought, needed Nintendo more than Nintendo needed them. They had a huge installed base for their current system and the would-be successors to their crown, such as Atari (remember the Jaguar) were, quite frankly, hopeless. Therefore, they sat back and prepared to enjoy exploiting their monopoly.

In other words, they took their eye of the ball.

This is, I suspect, why so many people who actually harboured affection for Nintendo took such utter pleasure in watching Sony utterly cream them in the next round of the console battle. There's no denying that the real, crippling damage to Nintendo was done during the PS1/N64 generation, when it was shown that Nintendo just weren't dynamic enough to keep up with the competition.

However, the X-Box has also played an important role in Nintendo's current woes. Outside of Japan, the X-Box has proven the more popular "second console", among people who own multiple machines. It's soaked up a lot of spare consumer cash that would otherwise have gone to Nintendo in this way. Furthermore, MS have also managed to put Nintendo, in the eyes of most commentators in the mainstream media, out of the running in the next round of the console wars. Being starved of the oxygen of wider publicity is not going to help the Revolution's debut at all.

Re:THE GOLDEN RULE FOR THIS TOPIC

[Anonymous Coward]

In the last 30 years Nintendo has posted a quarterly loss exactly ONCE.

Re:THE GOLDEN RULE FOR THIS TOPIC

[Anonymous Coward]

But then nothing Nintendo has ever done was innovative seeing as they copied everything (except dpads) from other devices.

Re:THE GOLDEN RULE FOR THIS TOPIC

[__aaakhl8499]

Sony is also highly profitable - even though it was selling the consoles at a loss initially, it more that recoups that loss from royalties on the games.

Nintendo is the only manufacturer that sells the console at a profit. This is a far cry from it being the only profitable manufacturer.

Re:THE GOLDEN RULE FOR THIS TOPIC

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, he's correct. Xbox passed up Gamecube about a year ago, and has a small lead. I do, however, agree that the Gamecube will likely have sold more when all is said and done.

Re:THE GOLDEN RULE FOR THIS TOPIC

[joshsisk]

Could you provide numbers for this?

Every news article I've read says that the Xbox lags significantly in the Asian market, while Cube lags in the US (but not by as big a margin as the Xbox does in Japan).

I have noted GC games are regularly in the Japanese top 10 sales lists, and I don't recall ever seeing a n Xbox title there.

Re:THE GOLDEN RULE FOR THIS TOPIC

[joshsisk]

The parent poster is referring to the fact that sony 's games division has posted a loss in the last quarter or perhaps quarters (as has MS' games division).

Re:THE GOLDEN RULE FOR THIS TOPIC

[PeelBoy]

Sure but Nintendo isn't any worse off now than they were when Sony whooped them with the Playstation so I honestly don't think the XBox made any kind of real impact.

People in the states just prefer a different kind of game than what Nintendo has to offer and Sony happens to have all of the 3rd party developers Nintendo use to have.

I'm willing to bet most of the people who switched to XBoxes were previously Playstation fans, not Nintendo fans. I didn't like the N64 OR the PS1 (I was much more into computer games at that time). I got the PS2 for GT3 and loved it. I got the XBox next because it had more multiplayer stuff and finally I got a GameCube and haven't looked back.

Most of my friends who are XBox fans were Playstaiton fans and PS2 fans first. Me and my bro were always the only Nintendo fans out of all of our friends.

(I was a huge nes, snes and sega fan in the day but when Wolf3d, doom, warcraft2 came out I quickly got into computer games)

Also what goes around comes around. Sony will get it handed to them one day just like Nintendo did.

Re:THE GOLDEN RULE FOR THIS TOPIC

[dogbowl]

clickable and dual analog are only variations based upon the initial innovation, hardly innovations in and of themselves. Granted Nintendo copied the idea of a wireless joystick, but many will argue that they were the first to actually do it right.

and Light Guns?? Read up on your history. Nintendo INVENTED light guns way back in the 70's. They actually opened up arcades with nothing but lightguns, and then spun that out into a number of odd home versions. The first version of Duck Hunt was actually built back in the 70's (and not on the NES as many beleive).

Re:THE GOLDEN RULE FOR THIS TOPIC

[Anonymous Coward]

And Nintendo can easily afford to be unprofitable too. They have billions in the bank and they aren't haemorrhaging cash like Sony and MS are on R&D.

The only reason they aren't blowing their cash on extravaganly powerful console designs is because Hiroshi Yamauchi still has a strong grip on the purse strings and they apparently have a different ethos. Nintendo will likely not be unprofitable for this next generation anyway, they have an uncanny knack of designing hardware that but doesn't need to be sold at a loss in a bid to gain marketshare. This is their secret to always remaining profitable.

Re:THE GOLDEN RULE FOR THIS TOPIC

[yammosk]

you think if MS gets lots of market share then ramps its prices to start making money that it will keep its market share?

Bah! I would say that this has already happened... Two words: Xbox Live. Sure they are selling the box at a loss, but how much cash do you think they are getting a month on this?

Re:THE GOLDEN RULE FOR THIS TOPIC

[yammosk]

I guess you've forgotten the Nintendo Power Pad.

Everyone has forgotten it. Isn't that his point?

Re:THE GOLDEN RULE FOR THIS TOPIC

[Anonymous Coward]

clickable and dual analog are only variations based upon the initial innovation

Same for Nintendo's "innovations".

Re:THE GOLDEN RULE FOR THIS TOPIC

[Anonymous Coward]

BZFUCKINGZZZZT (note how little argumentative value BZZT has). XBOX surpassed Cube ages ago. Microsoft has a 4 million lead.

Re:THE GOLDEN RULE FOR THIS TOPIC

[king-manic]

please bear in mind that Nintendo is the only profitable game company of these 3. no "Nintendo is dying" claims please.

You forgot to add "in the last 2 quarters". Before that both sony and MS made money. It's the R&D for the new consoles that have put both of them in the red. although MS had been in the red a lot before. Sony was rarely in the red.

Re:THE GOLDEN RULE FOR THIS TOPIC

[(A)*(B)!0_-]

"Isn't that his point?"

No, it is not. His claim was that Nintendo is no longer the innovator it once was. He then listed two "innovations" that were not only not innovations but also had already been released before the sources he cites. Perhaps you should reread the post I was responding to?

Re:THE GOLDEN RULE FOR THIS TOPIC

[Anonymous Coward]

Not as much as the $2 billion they sunk into it in the first place.

Re:THE GOLDEN RULE FOR THIS TOPIC

[mink]

I thought the only quarter the MS games division made profit was when Halo II was released.
I don't remember seeing any reports to the contrary.
Do you know where I can look for a good financial analysis of MS games division (isolated form the cash flow of Windows/Office)?

Re:THE GOLDEN RULE FOR THIS TOPIC

[Rico_Suave]

I love how the Nintendo fanboys love to skew things to make it look like Nintendo is doing better than they really are. If you truly want to compare all three corporations apples to apples, you have to eliminate Nintendo's handheld division. Without that, Nintendo's financial outlook is pretty bleak.

If you insist on comparing all sources of income, then both MS and Sony smack Nintendo around like a two dollar hooker.

Re:THE GOLDEN RULE FOR THIS TOPIC

[Anonymous Coward]

The parent post isn't a troll, you goddamn nintendo fanbois.

Re:THE GOLDEN RULE FOR THIS TOPIC

[3vi1]

...ALL innovations in controllers have been due in large part to Nintendo. Analoge controls, shoulder buttons, the freakin' directional pad, rumble, and so on

Being really really old and cranky, I can't let this go by as +5 informative.

The first analog console controller I saw was the one Atari made for the 5200 in 1982. Nintendo was not the first to push analog controls.

D-pad? Take an Intellivision controller (circa 1980) and turn it sideways. Instant innovation! Another acceptible answer would have been "cut the stick off of a 1982 Vectrex controller".

Nintendo's made some decent controllers, but they've never been radically new compared to their competition or forefathers. Nintendo's also designed some fugly controllers for people with three arms. So, I see no reason to believe Nintendo hype when they say they've got this fantastic new invention.

I hope I'm wrong. I collect video game systems and will most likely buy the Revolution whether it 's great or not. I don't want another Virtual Boy.

Re:THE GOLDEN RULE FOR THIS TOPIC

[Anonymous Coward]

I love how everyone calls each other fanboys.

Stop posting.

Trojan Horse

[CriminalNerd]

Xbox is a Trojan horse. ...

I don't see any dead fairies. >_>

Re:Trojan Horse

[Warfire]

I see dead fairies.

=:-O

in short

[Turn-X Alphonse]

Revolution will be fun, have a handful of really good games which everyone will adore.

Xbox 360 will have 1-2 extremely good games, have drool worthy graphics, but little more.

Playstation 3 will be the work horse, most note worthy titles will be on it, but it'll have the worst ports.

This is how everything works in the console market right now.

Sony - We can do everything look how flashy we are even if poor quality.

Revolution - Graphics can wait, lets have some fun. Who cares if you only own 10 games, you still play all of them.

Xbox 3 - We have Halo... erm.. and Halo!

Re:in short

[rogueIX]

Playstation 2 has the worse ports currently because the hardware is the oldest. However, the PS3 is coming out after the 360 now. I don't see how you come to this conclusion.

Re:in short

[Gulthek]

Xbox 3 - We have Halo... erm.. and Halo!

And Ninja Gaiden.

Re:in short

[Anonymous Coward]

amen. retards abound and lap up Sony's shit.

Re:in short

[vga_init]

I somehow don't understand how your prediction for the future is simply to state what is happening right now. Don't think it's possible that things JUST MIGHT be different?

I think it's anybody's game right now. I remember that consoles were much more separated when I was a kid. What kind of console you got really determined what kind of gaming experience you were going to have. Since the last batch, I started to see the lines blurring. The games were becoming similar, and there were a lot of multi-platform releases that you could play on all of them. These days it's much more neck-and-neck than it ever was, and it's only gotten worse. That's why I say everybody is in a potential position to take the lead.

Re:in short

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad reality in the console market doesn't work like that.

Console cycles are won and lost long before the hardware hits the shelves. The two key components needed for domination are amount exclusive IP and manufacturing cost versus performance.

Guess which company was dominant in those two areas ten years ago? Sony.

Guess which company was dominant in those two areas five years ago? Sony.

Guess which company is dominant in those two areas today. Sony.

If it was difficult to know who was going to be the dominant player in the console market, no one would ever sign an exclusive contract. The fact that console fanboys don't even start their silly and pointless debates until long after the battle has been decided is somewhat amusing but irrelevant.

Re:in short

[rohlfinator]

"If it was difficult to know who was going to be the dominant player in the console market, no one would ever sign an exclusive contract. The fact that console fanboys don't even start their silly and pointless debates until long after the battle has been decided is somewhat amusing but irrelevant. "

So who's signing all these exclusive contracts with Sony, the obvious leader? Square-Enix? Rockstar? Konami, Capcom, Namco, Sega? EA or Ubisoft? If Sony is already predestined to win the next console war, why are all these third parties creating games for Microsoft and Nintendo? Wouldn't it be beneficial for them to exclusively support the clear-cut winner, drive the other two out of the market, and be left with a unified userbase? Or maybe the winner isn't so obvious.

Oh, and:
"The two key components needed for domination are amount exclusive IP and manufacturing cost versus performance."

Then how come the Xbox (with a high manufacturing cost) and the GameCube (with a low manufacturing cost) have been neck-and-neck for four years? Why is the PS3 slated to be the most expensive next-gen console if Sony is so efficient in that area?
You sound so confident that the industry is extremely predictable, but it doesn't take long for the tides to turn. Sony started this generation with Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid and GTA as exclusives; now they're not. More franchises are moving multiplatform as time goes on, and there's absolutely no way for you to predict the big hits of the next generation. Nobody predicted that Halo would outsell most PS2 games. Who are you to say that Gears of War (for example) can't do the same?

Re:in short

[H0D_G]

I think that's point made.

I'm more worried about the developpers.

[TheSneak]

Seriously, think about it. The better the grahpics, the more expensive it becomes to produce a game. If the trend of increasing grahpics so rapidly continues, I can honestly see all the "smaller" game devellopers dying off IMO.

It already costs millions to make a decent, good selling, cross-platform game. Can the little guy realy keep up with Ubi-Soft, Vivendi and EA Games when that price doubles? Triples?

The smaller companies will either die off or have to surrender to larger publishers (like the ones listed above). It could be a good thing, but it could also bring an even greater shortage of origionality and risk-taking in the game market, not to mention fewer releases all together. Remember, big production companies don't take risks.

Re:I'm more worried about the developpers.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry that this is off topic, but your sig is wrong.

See this link for details. NASA spent no money developing the space pen. Further, both countries started to use the pen once Fischer made it available.

Re:I'm more worried about the developpers.

[cowscows]

I think Nintendo sees this, and they're positioning themselves the be an alternative to it. They've been pretty straightforward about saying that their console won't be built to push the most traiangles, so that means you don't have to hire extra artists to design all those polygons. And if they do this online distribution well, and let smaller developers have a crack at it, they could develop quite the community around the Revolution. Sure, most of those smaller developers won't be selling two million copies of their game in the first weekend like Halo, but they won't be spending $20 million just to ship the darn thing either.

Re:I'm more worried about the developpers.

[gmezero]

Oh please, STFU, people have been preaching this line of crap for a decade now and small shops keep popping up left and right. Their top two problems are not knowing how to market their games, and *completing* their games (let's discount the cash issue for now). If more indi shops could get a handle on these two items, there would be more games from small developers in the market.

Using your logic:
Small bands should have died off decades ago.
Local based retail chains should have ceased all existance in the U.S.
yadda yadda yadda...

As long as there are people who want to do their own thing and have the focus to stay commited to their goal, there will always be small development shops around making interesting and unique games.

Re:I'm more worried about the developpers.

[TheSneak]

Note that all your examples do not ship their product WORLDWIDE. They do not require signifigant manpower and (mostly) do not require anywhere near the amount of capital needed for videogame production.

Bands don't have to deal with increasing production costs, and most of them give away their music free and/or cheap. Local retail chains don't have to worry about costs for national/international shipping and get repeat business from locals who know and trust the business.

Really i could go on for hours here so i'll leave it at that.

Straw man, meet mr. torch.

Re:I'm more worried about the developpers.

[gmezero]

My case was the same thing has been said about those groups and see the proof. As for your statement of "capital required", and "significant manpower". I firmly state that these only apply to certain classes of games. And for many titles, better use of staff time and available resources can significantly reduce cost (do we really need to pay a million dollars for a 50 Cent song, or can we go out and find great song that is approriate for the game at a fraction of the cost from a lesser known artist?)

Case in point, I am aware of a development house that has just shipped their first game to market test in arcades in preperation for AMOA in September. It is a racing game for children with full 3-D textured environment. They also have three other games lined up in their pipeline at various stages of completion, and have been working for the last three years to get to this point. All self funded I might add from secondary employment until things take off.

And how big is this company? The company has TWO full time staff members, and one part-timer.

How about the major shareware game developers. They ship "WORLDWIDE", frequently have a staff of 2-4 people, and can bring a quarter million a year in sales. Sure this only applies to a couple of companies but still, it is possible. And look at Pop Cap, they give away product for free and cheep in greater volumes than any band does. Pahleese... go on, let's here more B.S. excuses.

Re:I'm more worried about the developpers.

[Anonymous Coward]

So, some vague reference to an arcade game developer you claim to have heard of and some shareware developers are the best examples you can come up with? I've never seen a decent shareware game with the production values expected of a current major console title yet.

Face it, the closest example to games are movies. And as we've seen they get more and more expensive and need ever greater amounts of people to create the effects and co-ordinate the stunts etc. Small developers these days concentrate on developing for the GBA or the DS which doesn't require 40+ man teams to generate all of the graphical assets and code. Try getting off your high horse and looking at what's really happening in the games market.

Re:I'm more worried about the developpers.

[gmezero]

Oh please, now we drag out the tired "just like Hollywood" argument... please Mr. (or Ms.) Anonymous Coward, stay out of this.

Please read the article
NEXT TO NOTHING to see examples that big budget and large staff are not a requirement to do well in Hollywood either.

As for your GBA/DS heckle... One recent game quickly jumps to my mind, Alien Hominid. Small staff, small budget, big sales. They've done pretty well and they had release on both the GameCube and PS2.

The arcade developer I mentioned is not someone "that I claim to have heard of" it's a studio located in the city where I live and I know the staff so piss off.

As for your slam on shareware games, you obviously haven't played very many shareware games.

Lastly... You DO NOT need 40+ man teams and millions of dollars to make a game for a console unless you A) don't know what the hell you're doing, or B) are trying to make a game that is more focused on graphics than gameplay, or C) making a game where the focus is first and formost on the the graphics and nothing else (Manager to AI coder on Wednesday: "Since the environment is going to have 50,000 trees in it, you have 1/10 of a clock cycle left to run your physics model in. We also need the game to have 15 other AI competitors to challenge the player. I'd like to see your progress Friday.")

Re:I'm more worried about the developpers.

[gmezero]

left out he link:

http://www.ideasfactory.com/funding_awards/feature s/fund_feature29.htm

Re:I'm more worried about the developpers.

[Scorchio]

No, you don't need 40+ man teams or millions of dollars, unless you're trying to create a game to compete side by side with the big publishers/developers. Indie game development is alive and well, and producing some excellent games, but let's face it, it's a different league. Two people working part time on a project are just simply not going to be able to produce the same quantity and quality of content within a game compared to a full time, full size team.

Part of the problem is consumer expectation: if the game isn't crammed full-to-busting with highly detailed models and textures, and doesn't push every last cycle of performance out of their console, then it'll generally be overlooked or perceived as mediocre, whether it's a good game or not. This is one of the issues raised here (ppt presentation).

The only way for smaller developers to continue is to produce smaller, cheaper games, and hope they still get sufficient sales. This is a big gamble.

Nintendo Article

[anza]

"And from the technical specs, Revolution is no Cell-beater - just as Nintendo had warned."

Strange, I don't remember Nintendo releasing any technical specs. The writer of this article is just pulling information out of his ass, and the article reflects this. He's another "Nintendo's next consoul is going to fl0p!!!11" because it doesn't appeal to the inner-city "hip" crowd that wants more games where they can shoot heroin and kill anything that moves. He never once mentions that due to the Revolutions price-point (which, by the precedent of other Nintendo consoles compared to it's Sony and Microsoft brethren, as well as Nintendo's own statements about it) will be significantly lower than the competitions. There's a bunch of parents out there that aren't going to buy a $300-400 game console, and they trust the Nintendo brand.

Just another Nintendo-naysayer with no idea what he's talking about.

Re:Nintendo Article

[Doomstalk]

While they haven't posted any hard specs yet, Nintendo has announced that Revolution will be two to three times as powerful as the Gamecube (there are other sources with this info, I just linked to the first one Google gave me). So there is somewhat of a basis for his comments. That being said, comparing it to the current generation gives us a fairly reliable metric for what to expect (none of the unshaded, untextured polygon numbers game bullshit), while we've yet to see any real-world information (Sony and Microsoft's E3 demos are anything but realistic) from the competition. Wait and see is the only option.

Re:Nintendo Article

[PeelBoy]

I'm pretty sure that comment wasn't for real. You can't believe everything you see online you know. I saw it posted one place and then it spread like wild fire. That doesn't make it a true quote.

And if the quote IS for real then perhaps Nintendo is quoting REAL WORLD NUMBERS and not the BS that MS and Sony are throwing around.

~3x is probably a realistic number for ALL of the next generation consoles.

Do you really honestly believe that just because the numbers are 30x faster that the console will be 30x faster? Is 3ghz REALLY 3x faster than 1ghz?

Are we no longer taking into account bottle necks?

What about the fact that most console programers probably don't have a whole ton of experience writing code for multiple cpus?

er sorry to go off like that because I know you're not trolling so none of this is really directed at you. I just hate it when people talk about these
numbers as if it has any basis on reality.

"Wait and see is the only option."

Totally.

Re:Nintendo Article

[PeelBoy]

Bullshit. I'm a Nintendo supporter and I pay close attention to what other Nintendo supporters say and I've never seen a claim of the Revo having better graphics.

Those other quotes are things Nintendo said, not Nintendo fans.

Which makes it funny that you say...

"big N ain't said nothing"

Except for 90% of the crap you just quoted.

"Well, where are the facts?"

Yeah, no shit. Where are the facts dip shit? Where are the facts for any of the next Gen console. Raise your hand if you have facts people come on I dare you. At this point all we have to go on is what the companies are telling us.

What Nintendo has told us thus far is no more factual than what Sony has told us OR what Microsoft has told us.

And don't give me this crap about what Nintendo HASNT told us.

Does it really fucking matter? You're not going to buy a Revolution anyway so why the fuck do you care?

I can play battlefield 2 in high res on my 3ghz PC with 1gb ram and it looks GREAT I don't really except next gen consoles to get TOO much better then that. So tell me where having 3x 3.5ghz is really going to come into play?

If Nintendo has 1x 3.5ghz I'll be fucking happy and I'm sure us Nintendo fans could really give a shit what people like you think.

Re:Nintendo Article

[Anonymous Coward]

4 Times faster is a pretty vague claim; there is really no supporting information to determine whether that is good or bad.

As an example I suspect that it will be challenging for the PS3 or XBox 360 to produce 4 times as many polygons per frame (1 Million Polygons per frame) with 4 times as much texture data while still supporting high quality shaders (BDRF, Normal Maps, Sub-surface scattering, .ect) and still have Aniosotropic Filtering and Anti-Alaising on. In fact, if I remember the article correctly, Quake 4 is only going to have 500,000 polygons per frame at a time (approximatley twice as many as was done on the Gamecube).

The fact is that, now more than ever, the requirements of producing a game that looks 'twice as good' are on an exponential scale. You have to double the number of polygons, double the ammound of texture data, double the number and quality of the shaders, double the number and quality of shadowing and lighting, etc.

This is why the comments that the 'XBox 360 is really the XBox 1.5' actually have some meaning; it isn't that the XBox 360 isn't that powerful but that it takes far more to get that same jump in graphical apearance.

Re:Nintendo Article

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not buying a Revolution? Have you seen the speculation on a Kid Icarus sequel? I'm just sick of Nintendo fanboys soundling like the guys that hang around the Duke Nukem Forever section of 3DRealms message board.

Re:Nintendo Article

[Doomstalk]

4 Times faster is a pretty vague claim; there is really no supporting information to determine whether that is good or bad.

It's more specific than publishing raw polygon counts with no shading, no texturing, no AI, and no realtime audio. It's also better than publishing raw MHz or gigaflops (without telling us what floating point operation they're measuring with). It gives us a point of comparison to something that actually exists, rather than theoretical numbers that mean nothing.

Re:Nintendo Article

[TyrionEagle]

Just another Nintendo-naysayer with no idea what he's talking about.

I just had to jump in here and correct your ill-informed assumption.

Owain is the editor of the UK's only trade magazine for games developers. He speaks to developers on a daily basis, is privvy to much more information than you and is exceptionally fair mided and even handed in his industry commentary.

He knows what he's on about.

Re:Nintendo Article

[PeelBoy]

Sony fanboys are so much better....NOT

In fact Nintendo fan boys have calmed down A LOT over the past few years. I remember when it use to be a lot worse.

I'm sick of people running around throwing these numbers around for next gen consoles as if these people actually know what these numbers mean and as if these numbers actually mean ANYTHING about REAL WORLD performance. Oh and completely forgetting that these numbers mean NOTHING about how well the console will do.

Tell me, if fast numbers mean so much why is the PS2 the #1 console by a LONG SHOT when it's what.. half the speed of the gamecube (comparing numbers) and MUCH slower than the XBox?

It's easily the worst console out right now as far as performance yet it's #1. Go figure.

So why do Sony fanboys think these numbers are so important this time around when they meant NOTHING last time around?

Re:Nintendo Article

[anza]

If that's true, then why is his article full of dreck?

"Moreover, Nintendo's best IPs - Mario, Link, and friends - lie far from today's violent and realistic cutting-edge. Hardcore gamers might value gameplay above all else, but the mass-market buys the total package."

The mass-market buys good gameplay. GTA, violence not withstanding, has good gameplay. The reason GTA was a success wasn't because you can kill hookers, but because you were granted freedom to do whatever you wanted. Part of the "Total Package" is also price. If the Revolution is $100 cheaper than it's PS360 brethren, the "Total Package" will attract a larger audience (both people just buying one console and someone buying a second).

"And from the technical specs, Revolution is no Cell-beater - just as Nintendo had warned."

Already took care of this. Considering we really have no idea what either console is capable of (especially considering Sony's tend to exaggerate, as well as not knowing the revolutions specs), this statement is hogwash.

"news that Nintendo's 20-year old back catalogue will be available online and playable on Revolution has been widely welcomed. But making decade-old games a key selling point of your next gen system seems somewhat ironic."

No, it's damn smart. He makes it sound like the addition to the back-library of Nintendo games was an indication that the rest of the system would not be up to standards with the rest of the generation. Ignoring Nintendo's own statements saying that the Revolution will be able to deliver graphics on-par with it's competitors, it's just another feature.

In addition, he's the editor of a UK magazine. The UK market is much less forgiving to Nintendo than both the US and Japanese markets. He's seeing the Revolution from a market which has never really liked Nintendo, and thus his viewpoints are skewed.

It's like the average American telling his or her opinions on your football (our soccer). Most people hate it or find it boring, but that's not a good indication on it's success worldwide. Sure, in the UK the Revolution might do badly, but a Nintendo console has yet not to make money in the US and Japan (minus the travesty that was the virtual boy).

Re:Nintendo Article

[Anonymous Coward]

No fanboys are better. They tend to use lots of capital letters for no good reason. Anyway, I don't remember bringing up any numbers.

First Sony is number one because of marketing and a few key exclusive titles. Second, Sony fanboys think numbers are important this time around because they feel like they have the advantage in that area this time. Being illogical and staunch in the face of contradiction are the hallmarks of the fanboy. Bottom line is that numbers don't matter. Every company has its share of great games.

Re:Nintendo Article

[cornface]

I hate to be the one to break this to you, but Kid Icarus was one of the crappiest NES games released.

I hope you're trolling. If so, I salute you. It takes serious balls to admit liking Kid Icarus...even as an anonymous prank.

Re:Nintendo Article

[PeelBoy]

"No fanboys are better. They tend to use lots of capital letters for no good reason"

Nice, and you just use blanket statements.

("For no good reason." That's funny. You're right I picked a few random words and made them capitalized for no good reason.)

I'm glad to see you're capable of pointing out something which has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about as if that some how makes you look smart.

Then you turn around and basically agree with what I just said. Nice.

Oh and I wouldn't blame Sony's success on marketing I'm sure Nintendo's stupidity around the time of the N64 had more to do with it than anything.

One right here

[Fr05t]

http://www.theelusivefish.com/ng/AofTL-01-04/tn-de adfairy.jpg

Where is Wyse? DEC? Televideo?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm still waiting for next generation terminal consoles from Wyse, DEC, and Televideo...

Yet another Console Wars Article

[DingerX]

Heehee... I love what this brings out.

Read up there. Somebody actually called Microsoft's disastrous and at best second-rate "Combat Flight Simulator" series "Generally Excellent"!

Oh, yeah, the article... I spotted this gem:

This is not Microsoft's DNA, however necessary the operation.

Woah Nelly! This guys craftsmanship mixes some serious metaphors, however clear the picture may be!

Last Xbox...

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a suspicion: The Xbox360 is going to be Microsoft's last console. Why? If the Xbox360 "performs" as "well" as the current Xbox (i.e. making billions of loss) they're going to leave the console market and concentrate on Windows gaming. And if the Xbox360 dominates the market they try to leverage this popularity to move more games onto Windows.
They have already started with XNA and Longhorn to bring a lot of their Xbox experience into the Windows platform. And in the end you hear Bill Gates speaking about placing the PC running Windows as the main entertainment platform - with windows media centre replacing stand-alone DVD, CD and TiVos. So where is the (incompatible!) Xbox going to fit? It is a trojan horse. See? Another dead fairy.

Re:Last Xbox...

[Anonymous Coward]

"I have a suspicion: The Xbox360 is going to be Microsoft's last console."

The 360 is the end of the road for MS in the console market. MS has essentially left the console market already with the 360. After the first xbox fiasco, there were really only two options for MS:

1) Pull the plug. MS came within inches of doing that during the first xbox when it started to become clear that they were getting destroyed by Sony and racking up billions in losses in the process

2) Retreat to the x86 home computer market. The failure to steal any system selling exclusives from Sony made this the only other option. The problem for MS is the x86 game market is in a steady decline that will never approach the magnitude of the size of the console market.

So yes, MS is dead in the console market. They want to move current x86 gamers to some sort of DRM locked in system where they are paying MS monthly fees like a utility. The failure of the first xbox has significantly lessened their ability to force consumers into such a system.

Muhahaha

[ReverendLoki]

Xbox is a Trojan Horse
Xbox is a Trojan Horse
Xbox is a Trojan Horse
Xbox is a Trojan Horse
Xbox is a Trojan Horse
Xbox is a Trojan Horse
Xbox is a Trojan Horse
Xbox is a Trojan Horse
Xbox is a Trojan Horse
Xbox is a Trojan Horse

I hate those damn fairies.

Xbox is a Trojan Horse
Xbox is a Trojan Horse
Xbox is a ...

Re:Muhahaha

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate those damn fairies.

Homophobe.

Re:Muhahaha

[TheSneak]

More likely he's owned a nintendo 64 or GCN and heard enough of

"Hey! Hey! Listen! Hey! Listen! Listen! Hey! Listen! Hey! Hey! Listen!"

*twitch*

Re:Muhahaha

[mink]

Less annoying then Tingle any day of the week.

Hiding in the shadows

[clu76]

Right now, the main event is Sony Vs. Microsoft. The Xbox 360 will, eventually, support HD-DVD. The Playstation 3 will use Blu-Ray technology. Which ever HD technology gets adopted by the masses could make or break Microsoft's or Sony's video gaming initiative. And they are both spending a lot of money trying to out do each other in various ways.

Then there is Nintendo, hiding in the shadows, watching the two titans waste their hit points (and money) fighting each other. Nintendo could potentially give the fatal blow to the , with a low cost unit, and huge classic game library. They're taking a risk by not supporting HD. But probably a very calculated risk, as HD won't be fully adopted until the very end of this next generations life cycle. And they aren't betting the farm like the other two.

My guess is, if someone is going to fall this next round, it will be either Sony or Microsoft. IMHO.

Re:Hiding in the shadows

[Anonymous Coward]

You honestly think Sony is 'battling' MS?

How quaint.

Re:Hiding in the shadows

[clu76]

You honestly think Sony is 'battling' MS?

Yes. It's called defending their dominant position. Thanks for not adding anything new or insightful to the discussion, Anonymous Coward.

Re:Hiding in the shadows

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's called defending their dominant position. "

Right...

Sony better watch their backs. After all they are dealing with a company that had to waste billions just to come in last in worldwide marketshare.

Re:Hiding in the shadows

[joshsisk]

Xbox could easily claim a large amount of the US marketshare in the next generation. Worldwide, I can't say, but in however many years, MS has managed to take the Xbox from a joke to something that the US gaming market is actually very interested in. The success of Halo/Halo 2 is a good example of that.

Re:Hiding in the shadows

[Anonymous Coward]

The stupidity of xbox fanboys is staggering. Probably why so many of them are destined to be three time losers:

Dreamcast->Xbox->360

What MS did with the Xbox is called LOSING. There is nothing to be proud of in LOSING. LOSING has never been and never will be a sign of great things to come.

MS has a gimped console they are rushing out the door to avoid having to compete with the PS3 and Revolution. The same shitty developers making games for the first Xbox are the same shitty developers making games for the 360. All those shitty Xbox games that over 100 million console owners didn't give a shit about last time aren't going to suddenly have any desire to buy them just becaus MS craps out a new console.

Go back to dreaming xbox fanboy. MS will be lucky to retain half their existing Xbox installed base.

Re:Hiding in the shadows

[joshsisk]

Decent troll. Actually, I don't even own an Xbox, I have a PS2 and a GC.

However, the 360 does look appealling to me (and many other gamers) this time around, partially because it looks like MS is in it for the long haul, partially because the whole XBL experience comes so highly recommended by my friends, and partially (in my case) because Resident Evil 5 is apparently going to be an Xbox exclusive. RE4 for the GC was by far the most fun game I played last year, so I would be willing to buy a 360 if the new one looks as good.

Basically what I'm saying is, there are people like me who will buy any console if it has games we want to play. Personally, I skipped the Xbox last time around because I assumed it was going to tank. It didn't, so I'm more inclined to pick one up this time around... IF it has good games.

Also, what the dreamcast has to do with the xbox, AND why anyone who bought a Dreamcast is a loser escapes me - there were lots of great games for that system.

Re:Hiding in the shadows

[cornface]

Resident Evil 5 is apparently going to be an Xbox exclusive.

And RE4 is going to be a GameCube exclusive. So is Viewtiful Joe. Also, Killer 7.

Oh wait.

Wasn't RE5 announced for the PS3 at the same time it was announced for the 360? Did that change in the last week? I wasn't paying attention.

Also, what the dreamcast has to do with the xbox, AND why anyone who bought a Dreamcast is a loser escapes me - there were lots of great games for that system.

And they were all free!

Re:Hiding in the shadows

[clu76]

The stupidity of xbox fanboys is staggering.

I hope you don't mean me. I'm a nintendo fanboy, all the way. Out of the next three, the 360 is last on my list. But just because I feel that way doesn't mean I can't make a feable attempt to look at things semi-objectively.

Microsoft could easily become the industry leader if HD-DVD becomes the next media standard. Sony is betting the farm with Blu-ray. If blu-ray fails, the PS3 will most likely fail. Same could happen to Microsoft if Blu-ray succeeds. That's the way I see it.

Re:Hiding in the shadows

[skepticult]

Yes, the Atari 2600 failed because it didn't use records, the NES failed because it didn't use cassette tapes, the Genesis failed because it didn't support VHS, the Sega CD was a success because it played CDs, and the GameCube didn't sell pretty much the exact same number of consoles as the Xbox because it couldn't play DVDs.

When the PS1 came out, nobody ever bought a CD player again, and the PS2 and Xbox spelled the end of the standalone DVD player market.

It's all true! If Blu-Ray doesn't become the Hollywood standard nobody will buy a Playstation 3 again!!! How will they play their movies?

Sheesh.

Re:Hiding in the shadows

[clu76]

Think about it a little.

The difference between Blu-Ray and all the other mediums you just listed (records, cassettes, VHS, CDs, DVDs) is that those were all already established in the market place. Blu-Ray nor HD-DVD have made their way into the hands of consumers.

Both Microsoft and Sony are partially relying on their choice of HD technology to be adopted by the masses, so that more units are manufactured and sold, so that the prices for these technologies eventually come down. New technologies are costly upfront, and companies plan to make up for these intially high manufacturing costs down the road.

Hypothetically speaking, Blu-Ray fails to capture the consumer movie market... This means the PS3 could be stuck using a more expensive technology for it's entire lifespan, because not enough Blu-Ray hardware was manufactured to drive down the costs. Consumer buying habits can also be affected, as there is no incentive to pay extra for an over priced Blu-Ray movie player feature that no one supports. Same would be mostly true with Microsoft and HD-DVD.

I'm guessing Sony has the upper hand. But Sony also needs Blu-Ray to succeed more than Microsoft to succeed, because Sony is also relying on making money from the licensing fees from Blu-Ray technology. HD-DVD isn't Microsoft's technology, it belongs to Toshiba.

Re:Hiding in the shadows

[joshsisk]

And RE4 is going to be a GameCube exclusive.

RE4 came out in what, November/December? It's still only on the Gamecube, to my knowledge.

Well, I mean I guess you could also say that the GTA games aren't REALLY Sony exclusives, you just have to wait A YEAR to play them on the Xbox or PC... personally, I'd rather get them when I want to play them then have to wait a year, I don't know about you.

Wasn't RE5 announced for the PS3 at the same time it was announced for the 360?

Is RE5 going to be on the PS3? If so, I may buy it for that system instead, if the PS3 is out by the time RE5 is.

Re:Hiding in the shadows

[cornface]

Is RE5 going to be on the PS3?

I think so. That's why I was asking if it had changed. I thought I saw someone else mention it as a 360 exclusive.

Here's a link.

Re:Hiding in the shadows

[joshsisk]

Sweet, I had also read elsewhere it was 360-only. If it's not, then that tips my wallet a bit more away from the 360, then. I just know I want to get RE5, whatever the system it's on... 4 was great.

Re:Hiding in the shadows

[AscendantOat]

Since Nintendo's not supporting HD, the Revolution only needs to put out a third of the pixels per frame as its competitors (assuming 720p HD; it's an even bigger difference for 1080i). You can have much more complex graphics if you don't need to support high resolution (or even medium, in this case). Revolution needn't be as powerful graphics-chip-wise to deliver quality as good or better than the 360 and PS3, only lower-res.

Where Revolution's graphics might fall short is in procedural synthesis (creating geometry on-the-fly on the CPU) and other streaming media, which Cell's SPE's and 360's multiple SMP cores excel at.

Hopefully, Revolution will provide enough branching oomph for truly next-gen AI, as the PPEs in the PS3 and 360 have poor branching performance and cache; they're insane at streaming media, which doesn't need branching nor cache, but are well below standard PC CPUs for AI.

Re:Hiding in the shadows

[skepticult]

It's going to take several years for whatever format wins to work it's way past King DVD. Anything is possible, but I think this will be a non-issue.

I can't see the PS3 doing all that well

[PeelBoy]

As much as I would like to see the PS3 do well over the 360 I just can't see it.

I honestly think the Revolution has an easier time in Japan than the PS3 because of the fact that the PS3 is bigger and heavier than the current XBox and to top it off it's going to be expensive. The Revolution is going to be cheaper, small as hell and light. That's perfect for the Japanese market.

In America the XBox will be coming out much earlier, provides plenty of power and will be much cheaper (if the $300 price tag is correct). Why wouldn't it do well other then the fact that the Playstation has the Sony name backing it?

Personally I'd like to see the PS3 be #1 and the Revolution to just keep doing what Nintendo does best. Keep their fans happy, and convert more non-gamers and casual gamers to Nintendo fans.

I just can't see my self spending over $350-$450 or whatever the PS3 is going to cost so even though I'm more of a PS fan I'll probably end up going with an XBox. (and of course a revo at its lower price theres no real reason not too plus i love nintendo)

Re:I can't see the PS3 doing all that well

[Anonymous Coward]

"Why wouldn't it do well other then the fact that the Playstation has the Sony name backing it?"

Gee, a massively more powerful console that has a warchest of exclusive IP that 90-120 million console consumers wanted over the last two console cycles is obviously going to be of little help to Sony's PS3.

I don't know if you were just trolling, trying to be funny, or are just plain dumb. Whatever the fuck it is, just stop.

Re:I can't see the PS3 doing all that well

[PeelBoy]

I'm not trolling OR trying to be funny.

What makes you think the PS3 hardware will be any faster? oh because it has bigger numbers? Use your brain much? So what's faster a 2ghz intel or a 2ghz AMD? What's faster 3 1ghz chips or 1 3ghz chip?

I will agree with one thing though that I forgot about. Sony has games like GTA, GT and FF. All of which I'm personally bored of (none of them have seen any significant new changes to keep me interested) but they're still huge and that's probably what will help sony win out.

Why are you posting anon? Seems to me you're the one trolling. Have a nice day

Re:I can't see the PS3 doing all that well

[mconeone]

Square is developing FF 11 for the 360. New titles will probably follow. Rockstar developed GTA for the XBox, albeit much later. With the 360 coming out before the PS3, who knows if they will jump ship and release for the 360 first.

Re:I can't see the PS3 doing all that well

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, it sounds like you think MS has 'teh momentum' with the Dreamcast 360!

Keep dreaming fanboy. Console dev houses dumping old games or six month old ports onto the whatever POS piece of hardware MS happens to have on the market is delusional in the hope that it would lead to anything more than the same in the future.

Re:I can't see the PS3 doing all that well

[Anonymous Coward]

just wanted to jump in and sday that FFXI is a PC port, and nothing more... Square has stated this...And it is only being ported to the 360 because of online support... NO other FF games are coming to Xbox (Any variety) And they never will as long as Sony owns a sizable portion of the stock...

Gears of War looks exactly like PS3 offerings.

[larsoncc]

I'm a fan of PS3. I'll own one when it comes out. I'll own a Revolution, and yeah, I've got the XBox 360 on reserve. I'm a game fan, and have been from the get-go.

I can tell you - a few poor games don't make a system. Launch titles can be cool, but are generally worthless as indicators of a system's power or future in the market. That picture changes within a console's first year of release. If you don't have anything cool within a year, you're hosed.

I don't think XBox 360 falls into this category. There will be many cool games for the system within a year.

Further, I wouldn't agree with your assesment - have you seen the changes to Call of Duty 2? It's a better game now than it was.

As far as games hitting the streets following the initial release...

Both these systems will be running the Unreal 3 engine in several games, and hence, the systems won't be that different in style or effects. Graphically, they're equal.

Gears of War looks identical in complexity when compared to the UT 2007 video shown on the PS3.

Huxley looks as good, but with killer online elements, something that the PS3 simply hasn't shown.

As far as OTHER engines go...

Resident Evil looks exactly the same on both systems.

Quake 4 looks just as good as its PC counterpart.

IT'S ALL ABOUT THE ENGINE. Not the tech specs.

Think about your PC. How many titles really push the highest end cards? A few. How many titles are rushed to market on either a low budget or from artistically devoid studios? Why would you expect anything different on consoles?

Not to worry you... but not everything on PS3 is going to come up roses, either - it will have its share of bombs.

I really don't see where you're counting on Revolution - nothing is known about the system! It could be a giant mass of crap, you don't know.

"There has never been a worse unveiling for a console ever."

There have been TONS worse, both from successful vendors and from failures.

People misunderstood this launch, which is definitely a MS problem - as the article states, Microsoft is all about the middle layer - Live and the XNA tools, and the home entertainment. We'll see how well the all-in-one approach works to sell systems. I know that I'm in. And PS3? Cool.

People might not "get" this generation now, but man... I'm here to tell you, they will. Even at its most basic level, it's going to rock your socks off - I can't wait for the media capabilities (coupled with ease-of-use).

Re:Gears of War looks exactly like PS3 offerings.

[Pranadevil2k]

It's about the engine, is it? Lots of current generation games on the PS2 and GameCube had their graphics engines made and used once, then never used again or completely overhauled for a sequel.

The graphics engine for Dynasty Warriors 3, for example, was updated for Dynasty Warriors 4, and updated again for DW4:Empires. A later release, Samurai Warriors, used a different engine capable of more detail and more characters onscreen. After that, the Samurai Warriors engine was used in Dynasty Warriors 5 after making more changes.

As far as I know, Final Fantasy VII-X all had different graphics engines, and it looks like XII is going to have another new engine.

On the GameCube, look at WindWaker, than then the footage/screenshots of the new Zelda game.

What I'm saying is that graphics engines can be overhauled, edited, changed, or totally scrapped in favor of something completely different. You can't judge every game by its' engine. Dynasty Warriors 5 is going to be released on the X-Box 360. Do you think it won't have engine enhancements from the PS2 version?

And why are we focusing so much on how a game looks, anyway? I know some perfectly good PS2 games that have almost no 3D graphics in them. I'd love to see more! A good story with an equally good game system is better than Halo any day.

Re:Gears of War looks exactly like PS3 offerings.

[larsoncc]

And why are we focusing so much on how a game looks, anyway?

Well, because graphics sell consoles (or at least have sold consoles). Sometimes, it's a sign of how much a developer's vision is limited by hardware.

Lots of current generation games on the PS2 and GameCube had their graphics engines made and used once... Do you think it won't have engine enhancements from the PS2 version?

There goes my point! Oh... you missed it.

See, the parent poster went on and on and on about how the graphics are lousy on the X360, and it was going to be a disaster, and on and on. I was telling him to chill - once all the cross platform engines are in place, the graphics will be about equal.

The Unreal 3 engine (and several other engines) will power some of the games on both systems. The visuals they produce will be more or less equal on both systems - maybe with some minor differences. Madden looks about the same on all the systems, for instance. Same thing here.

I know some perfectly good PS2 games that have almost no 3D graphics in them

Not to mention the XBox variants of the same games, like SNK's classic Metal Slug series (or GC - Viewtiful Joe). I'd love to see more, too.

But graphics, online play, and multimedia are big selling points for this generation. You're not going to see anyone (except Nintendo) bragging on the ability to play old 2D games.

And for 2D, well, that just reinforces my point further. The systems are VERY hard to tell apart if you're looking at old school graphics.

Re:Gears of War looks exactly like PS3 offerings.

[Pranadevil2k]

Okay, guess I didn't quite get that. I'd mod you insightful if I had points =/ But for the 2D games I'm talking actual new games, like Makai Kingdom, Atelier Iris.. pretty much anything from Nippon Ichi Software, really. Sprite graphics, just like gaming should be -_-

oh and one more thing

[PeelBoy]

"As much as I would like to see the PS3 do well"

"Personally I'd like to see the PS3 be #1"

"I'm more of a PS fan"

Oh yeah, I'm such a fucking anti-playstation troll.

You're a genius.

Re:Bad News For Xbox Fans

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that you, Blig Merk?

love,

alt.games.video.xbox

And those goals are...

[Guppy06]

"All three companies have their own goals and histories to consider when it comes to the business of games. "

Sony's goal: spend more money than Microsoft
Microsoft's goal: spend more money than Sony
Nintendo's goal: profit

Re:And those goals are...

[KevlarTheSleepinator]

Sony's goal: spend more money than Microsoft
          Microsoft's goal: spend more money than Sony
          Nintendo's goal: profit

So does Nintendo finally know what step 2 is?

Tetris...

[sykjoke]

No one ever played Tetris or Bust-a-Move since online gambling inc released the tactile 9000 untimate reality gaming engine.
    Seeing as SolSuite and Snood are in the top ten games downloads at wwww.download.com I think the small timers are still in for a shout at the games market.

mod down

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't believe this retarded troll is getting modded UP.

No sources, unsubstantiated claims of rushed hardware, saying m$ has self destructed, no showing of where m$ promised new videos, nothing.

It's not interesting, it's a blatant troll/flame.

Just because it's anti-microsoft doesn't mean we should be automatically rewarding jack offs.

Support higher /. standards. mod down.

Re:mod down

[Anonymous Coward]

Support higher /. standards. mod down. ...anything this moron doesn't agree with. Because, you know, the people who had upmodded the dude are obviously backwards helmet wearing knuckledraggers with no concept of what they are reading.

Hey dickface, go fuck yourself.

Thanks.

You need a napkin?

[DoctaWatson]

Because that verbal blowjob you just gave Nintendo looked messy. You take a lot on faith ("IT'S CALLED REVOLUTION SO IT MUST BE REVOLUTIONARY!!!OMG!!") and insult the people you disagree with.

You're living in a fantasy world if you think Nintendo's 20 year old franchises somehow reach into this casual demographic where the big franchises like GTA, WoW and Madden fear to tread.

Newsflash: the "casual gamer" market isn't soccer moms or nascar dads. It's the immature teens and early 20's that you so smugly dismiss, the boys who were raised on NES, SNES and Genesis. They are the US gaming market's bread and butter and Nintendo moves further and further away from them with nearly every release, whether you accept it or not.

In fact, I would posit to you the idea that Nintendo caters mostly non-casual gamers, people who are willing and able to see past the cuetsy character designs for the great gameplay.

The fact of the matter is that Nintendo has been flogging their 20 year old franchises for years, and given nothing new to appeal to adults since. If they're going to survive in America they better come up with a franchise that doesn't have flowers, fairies or metroids. Good gameplay can hold up sales only for so long, as more and more companies manage to come up with good gameplay and relevant themes.

And the surest sign of acute fanboism is when they finish a post like that:

"You have no basis to even try to argue your paper thin case, I'd love for you to keep trying though as it gives me great pleasure to pick apart your fallacies and attempts. Next."

Get over yourself. I don't think anyone on Slashdot wants to live in a world where Nintendo isn't making videogames, but let's be realistic.

Re:You need a napkin?

[rAiNsT0rm]

Heh, you got it all figured out then. I must just be a total idiot. Well, I'm not wasting my time to reply as you seem to be pretty sure of yourself... guess we'll see in a years time. Oh, and BTW when Nintendo reveals their controller I'll accept any apology you may have for me.

The fact is that no company is going to blow smoke up everyones asses for months dragging it all out and making it THE platform on which their console lives/dies if it truly isn't special. In this business there is hype, marketing, etc. but there also is a large helping of strategy... something Nintendo has down to a science. This is a strategic move for sure and it would be the mistake of the millenia if they were bluffing.

I was not insulting out of fanboyism, I was insulting based on the silly premise of the original argument to the contrary. I have no horse in this race, and was a member of the PS2 media/industry for over 4 years... I come at this argument form the "other" side. I know what is hype and what is not based on my experience, and am almost 100% in the past on predictions such as these... I have spoken with inside folks that I know personally and have a pretty solid understanding of what is going down this round of consoles. I actually have a clearer view of this launch than any in my past, I'm no tclaiming to know everything or have a crystal ball... just years of work and knowledge of the industry to back my claims.

I also love the contradiction in your post. You bash Nintendo for "flogging" 20 year old franchises (which are always spun fresh and new each time out of the gates.. for *20* years, that's pretty amazing actually) but then at the end of your post you state no one here at /. wants to live in a world with out Nintendo?!? Get your shit straight.

Re:You need a napkin?

[leland242]

"Because that verbal blowjob you just gave Nintendo looked messy. You take a lot on faith"

And more on his chin.

I agree with the original poster though - the Revolution's controller better be damn impressive. I think it will be...but it's more likely be something obvious and cleverly implemented.

At least N has us talking about some unknown invention that improves gaming than just a system with the most biggest gigasonicflops processor... I find that far more interesting.

Re:You need a napkin?

[buffer-overflowed]

Metroid!? Flogged to death? If you want to see flogged to death, look at Capcom and Square-Enix. Hell Metroid is no more flogged to death than Halo or GTA.

I mean hell, in the gaming thesaurus:
Flogged to death: see Megaman.

Nintendo is no more guilty of relying on franchises than any other Japanese developer who published in the NES/SNES era. You know, the guys who push out most of the content.

I also know of NO adult who grew up in the NES/SNES era and actually PLAYED the NES/SNES games who doesn't have a soft-spot for those old franchises and old games. The only people making those criticisms are the people who got into it with the Playstation in high-school/college, or the bitter SEGA fans who bought the Saturn over the N64/PS. If you can't "do the mario" w/o looking up what it was, you fall into that category.

Most of us got pissed off at Nintendo over the N64 when they lost all their 3rd party devs. Some of us came back for the Gamecube and view it as a making up for the N64 disappointment(which it does). Quite a few stayed in PC land, and even more just stopped gaming because they started families.

Seriously, if Nintendo pulls off the revolution half as well as their diehard faithful think they will, their old fans will come back in droves. If only to nab it as a 2nd console to relive and share their old gaming days while checking out some things they missed.

2-3x

[Anonymous Coward]

I hear people dog the Revolution because it's supposedly only 2-3x as powerful as the GameCube. But honestly, when you think about it, if Revolution is capable of games that have graphics, sound, and physics 3x as good as the current generation, that's good enough.

I mean, really, graphics 3x as good as Twilight Princess'? Definitely drool-worthy.

The real big picture

[superpulpsicle]

In the next generation...

1 - this is the first time two billion-dollar corporations are launching 1st and 2nd

2 - this is the first time two companies have an arsenal of successful products to backup a flagship console. M$ in windows, Sony in electronics.

3 - this is the first time where internet gaming is already established

4 - This is the first time US vs Japan instead of Japan vs Japan at the start of the gate.

Re:The real big picture

[__aailob1448]

The parent is a textbook definition of an insightful comment. Mod him up!

Re:The real big picture

[Anonymous Coward]

These are all excellent points. The 4th, in particular, is worthy of further consideration.

The upcoming battle is going to be a really serious test of the Japanese consumer. There's been a lot of speculation as to why the X-Box bombed as badly as it did in Japan. I'm an X-Box fan, to some extent, but there's no denying that it did pitifully over there. There are two main (and not necessarily mutually exclusive) reasons that are advanced for this.

The first reason is that the types of games that formed the bulk of the X-Box's lifespan until near the end of its cycle were not the games that Japanese consumers like to play. FPSes are not big in Japan (and I've heard possibly-true physiological explanations for this revolving around motion sickness). RPGs are huge. It took the X-Box a hell of a long time to get any RPGs of note. Jade Empire was the first X-Box RPG that I could really see appealing to Japanese tastes.

The second reason, which is a bit depressing if true, is that Japanese consumers just refuse to buy a non-Japanese console. Personally, I'd like to think that, in the global economy, we've moved past this kind of nationalist-consumerism, but you never know.

Now, if the reason for the X-Box's troubles are more the first reason than the second, then the 360 should, in theory, take Japan by storm. They've got a great line-up of Japanese developers onboard and have poached some good RPG series. Square-Enix's online branch (which runs FFXI) is making the same kind of noises about the 360 now that Square were making about the PS1 back when it launched and it was clear that the N64 would be cartridge only. Square-Enix making exclusive games for the 360 would, if the first reason is the one that counts, have a profound effect on the Japanese gaming market.

Of course, if it's the second reason that's predominant, MS might as well just not bother launching in Japan.

Re:The real big picture

[mink]

All the corporations releasing a console are billion dollar companies. Even Nintendo can be said to have "an arsenal of successful products to backup a flagship console. I can't believe this got modded interesting, at least it wasn't insightful.

Re:The real big picture

[koi88]

This is the first time US vs Japan instead of Japan vs Japan at the start of the gate.

Remember Atari? Japanese name, American company.

But please, don't make it sound like our patriotic duty to support a company like Microsoft, that has taken advantage in its monopoly in other areas like few others before. I certainly don't want this to happen.
Besides, it might be the (mostly) Japanese game developers who decide the war of the consoles by supporting them.

Re:The real big picture

[Rico_Suave]

Who said anything about it being anyone's "patriotic duty"?

Personally, I prefer the Xbox because I'm not interested in the very Japanese stylings of what many of the PS2 and Gamecube titles offer. It has nothing to do with being "patriotic" - I simply prefer the style of American and European developers.

Europe

[tepples]

Every news article I've read says that the Xbox lags significantly in the Asian market, while Cube lags in the US (but not by as big a margin as the Xbox does in Japan).

Every news article I've read says that the GameCube lags in Europe the way the Xbox lags in Japan.

Language barrier

[tepples]

and then rapidly dropped to be inline with other games (err, about $60. But remember, we're not being ripped off here, goodness no).

Translation of a game's text into continental European languages costs real money.

Re:Language barrier

[Haeleth]

Translation of a game's text into continental European languages costs real money.

Newsflash: in England people speak a language called "English". By all accounts it's fairly similar to English, so I don't think it can be too expensive to translate games into it.

Re:Language barrier

[tepples]

Newsflash: in England people speak a language called "English".

Newsflash: on the continent, which is just as much a part of Region 2-PAL as the British Isles are, people speak English only as a second language. This is especially true of children (who make up a large part of the target market for E games), many of whom can't read anything but the national language. Console makers often require games for the European regionto have text in multiple languages.

Re:Language barrier

[Neuticle]

The grandfather post is talking about how the UK gets screwed when the only localisation is flipping the bit from NTSC to PAL, and find->replace color:colour, cookie:biscuit etc. and honestly, with modern gaming systems the NTSC-PAL thing is only there to make it difficult to import. They are unfairly forced to subsidise games' translation into other languages.

If I can get a job making REAL MONEY as an English - English translator, sign me up!

Nothing will change...

[cttforsale]

- Microsoft will have the most PC like system (and FPSs) - Sony will handily thrash all in sales and total library - Nintendo will make the most money

next gen game consoles

[kwoff]

More hardcore pixel-on-pixel action!

Indie games on consoles?

[tepples]

No, you don't need 40+ man teams or millions of dollars, unless you're trying to create a game to compete side by side with the big publishers/developers. Indie game development is alive and well

On consoles? How do indie game developers attract the licensed publishers, who are the only ones who have access to the console companies' secret boot methods?

Re:Indie games on consoles?

[Scorchio]

TBH I've no idea how much money or coercing it would take for an indie group to become licenced console developers, but I imagine this is in itself a huge hurdle for any small group. As far as "indie" is concerned, I was referring to people developing for more accessible platforms like PC, Mac and such like.

The guys behind Alien Hominid went from flash to consoles, in a classic tale of indie-team-done-good. Ok, they had plenty of console experience behind them, and I've no idea how much money they had to put up, but it shows it's not entirely impossible to do.

Re:Indie games on consoles?

[gmezero]

You deliver a completed game to a publisher so that they do not have to take any up-front risk short of the risk of putting it on the shelf.

Your point remains unillustrated

[DoctaWatson]

I guarantee no one ever bought a PC to play snood (being that console dominance and viability is the topic of discussion). The market Nintendo is trying to reach out to is not the same as the flash/minigame/minesweeper market, and even if it is, it isn't going to drive console sales. The people who play those smaller independently developed games tend to purchase them for hardware they already own.

Is your grandfather planning on buying a Revolution? Is a soccer mom going to go out and buy junior a Revolution over a 360 or PS3 because she can play Bejeweled on it? I doubt that's even going to remotely be a factor in the overwhelming majority of sales.

Re:Your point remains unillustrated

[rAiNsT0rm]

No one ever bought a PC to play snood, no one ever bought a PC to play WoW either. Point?

The fact is that on many PC's that have no other games besides minesweep/solitare you will find Snood. That is marketshare.

People like to think the world revolves around them and their favorite console/game. The actual numbers are so skewed if you only live online and in places like /. Sit in on a REAL game development meeting in the early stages and you will see the reality. They know their market, they know their target, and they do a good job of marketing and hitting those goals... but they are not large. When it is all said and done most games, even blockbusters like GT4 only hit a small target audience. Truly pervasive titles like Tetris find themselves on cell-phones, consoles, mom's, dad's, kids, teens, they all play and own a copy in some form... this is a successful game and one the makers of GTA, GT4, WoW, etc. would love to have even more than their flagship product because the licensing and revenues go beyond boundaries.

My sister would I guess qualify as a soccer mom, and yes she is planning on buying her kids a Revolution so that they can all enjoy it. Old games, new games, cost... they all lead to many ways to enjoy ONE console. The PS3 and Xbox are one-trick ponies and hit the 15-24 year old demographic well. Ever notice how so many people own a PS2 or Xbox AND a GC? that's on top of the families that own just a GC. *My* grandfather is not planning on buying anything... but many grandparents with younger grandchildren will indeed buy the Revolution as it is a good fit.

Your obviously not aware of the true sales numbers of games, someone in one of the replies above gave a list to the top selling games of all time... go check it out, you will change your tune real quick. And yeah Nintendo would NEVER go after the flash/minigame/minesweeper market... they only created Wario Ware, the mini-game in general, and all kinds of things to hit this exact market.

Re:Your point remains unillustrated

[DoctaWatson]

I personally know at least 5 people who either bought or upgraded PC's primarily to play World of Warcraft. It was sick.

I know three or four who bought a PS2 for the Grand Theft Auto Games, myself included.

I know two who bought XBoxes, one for Halo, one for Fable.

I don't know anyone who bought a PC to play Snood, or a Gamecube to play WarioWare (minigames or not, it's still not a mainstream title). I'm obviously not aware of the "true sales numbers", but I know what drives hardware sales, and Snood ain't it.

Your point about grandparents buying hardware for their grandchildren has nothing to do with mass market appeal, as those grandchildren are the core gaming market you've discounted in every one of your posts. Show me a grandfather who's buying a Revolution to play it and then you'll start to make some sense.

Consoles are a different platform

[tepples]

You deliver a completed game to a publisher

Wouldn't a completed game be for the PC and not easily portable to the Xbox, GameCube, PS2, Game Boy Advance, Nintendo DS, and PSP? And what should a developer do when the developer delivers a completed PC game and every licensed publisher turns down porting it to any console?

NTSC to PAL conversion

[tepples]

flipping the bit from NTSC to PAL

That in itself takes some effort. A lot of game engines, especially on the PS2, are specified with timing and VRAM space to run on a 60 Hz display with 480 picture lines, not a 50 Hz display with 576 picture lines. Even now, not all TVs are compatible with a 60 Hz PAL signal.

WATCH THE FUCKING KILLZONE2 VID FOR PS3 REALTIME

[Anonymous Coward]

god DAMN, where did you come from. PS3 is going to fucking smash the xbox 360 in terms of graphics.

I'm waiting ...

[Ryan Monster]

to play Duke Nukem Forever after it's been ported the Phantom console.