Slashdot Mirror
Large PS3 Launch, Nintendo Resolutions
ConfusedFX writes "GameDAILY has published a news article featuring Reggie Fils-Aime, Nintendo's Executive Vice President of Sales. He had several things to say about Nintendo's 2006 strategy, one of which, 'We will sell more units than Xbox 360 did here in the United States in our launch window.' He commented about Xbox 360 owners spending nearly $800 at launch; he wants the Nintendo Revolution to be 'affordable' to the average gamer. Additionally, GameDAILY has posted an interview with Andy Parsons, senior VP of Pioneer Electronics, written by The Digital Bits. Some analysts expect the PS3 to launch with around 1 million units -- Andy says he's heard differently from Sony. 'If Sony ships the kind of numbers we expect them to this year, that will provide a very rapid growth of players out there hungry for titles. We've been hearing between 4 and 7 million units could ship.'"
I believe very strongly that Zelda and the Revolution will release within a month of each other. Since the Revolution plays GC games natively it would be a mistake not to release what would be such a huge Revolution-selling game so far a way. I expect Zelda to prime the market for the Rev's release sort of a pre-launch game to get the Nintendo name on everyone's lips.
Just my prediction.
It will sell fairly well, but people will be confused by it at first.
Depends on the number of demo units they have. If they put Revolutions playable in stores a few weeks before launch (like they did with the DS), I don't see a problem.
That's definately to be expected. The public and press are always going to be interested in the next, newest things. That's what happened with the Gamecube and Xbox. There was an enormous amount of press about those two consoles, yet the PS2 obviously reigned supreme in the end.
Wait until 2007 rolls around, when all consoles have (presumably) launched, and then see what the press/public cares about to see what has ultimately grabbed mindshare.
It's all about the games. I'm a big Japanese RPG fan, so my PS2 got far more play than my Xbox. However, there are a couple of interesting J-RPGs in development (Blue Dragon and Lost Odyssey to name a few). If they do well, and Square continues to make more titles for the 360 (FFXI is now in beta), then the 360 may actually be relevant in Japan. If that happens, then that could definately reduce the market share of the PS3. If not, then yeah, the 360 will essentially be the same as the first Xbox
What I'm really worried about is Nintendo. After talking to my friends (who have been Nintendo fanbois in the past), they are surprisingly pessimistic about the Revolution. It seems people are either really excited about the new control scheme, or think it's going to fall flat on their face. I'm all for controller improvements, and Nintendo has shown it is fully capable of performing here (we have them to thank for analog sticks and the trigger button), but this is a pretty drastic thing. I'm hoping its more like the DS and less like the Virtual Boy.
-- jchenx
> It seems people are either really excited about the new control
i s-too-"out-there"
> scheme, or think it's going to fall flat on their face. I'm all
> for controller improvements, and Nintendo has shown it is fully
> capable of performing here (we have them to thank for analog
> sticks and the trigger button), but this is a pretty drastic
> thing.
If you hint at the
Revolution-will-flop-because-its-controller-
argument, then you must, in fairness, address the obvious
counter-arguments:
1) Yes, the design is drastically different from what we have now,
but that fact alone doesn't even hint at whether it's going to
result in games that are better or worse; you're going to have to
actually *play* Revolution games before you can pass judgement on
that. Besides, how many times have you seen people move their arms
and tilt their torsos while playing a game? I think they're tapping
into an innate human desire to have body movement translate
into action on the screen, and I think they're on to something. For
a lot of people, being able to use the whole upper body to play a
game is going to make the game more fun. This theory, when applied
to the lower body, has already paid off immensely: just look at
Dance Dance Revolution.
2) You will be able to use conventional GameCube controllers. If
the new controller feels awkward, you'll probably be able to fall
back on the old ones most of the time. So even if the controller
sucks -- and this supposition counters the enthusiasm of many
outspoken third-party game developers -- the platform will still do
well enough if there are good games for it.
3) Most people will not buy more than one console if the second
console doesn't give you something that isn't in the first. So
they're compelled to create something that's so different that even
non-gamers will take notice.
4) The company's success is in part a result of actions that broke
from convention. Nintendo is the largest "indie" game developer in
the world. Think how boring offerings from id and EA have become in
comparison. Those one-dimensional peddlers can be relied upon to
release the next "innovative" FPS and the next true-to-life Madden
NFL game. Nintendo is the company that's going to show you
something you've never seen before. If they *didn't* take "risks"
like this periodically I'd be disappointed.
5) I don't think the controller design that they revealed is the
first one their R&D people dreamt up. I'm sure they employ an
entire staff just to research new concepts about human-computer
interaction, new kinds of sensors, etc. And I'm sure they tested
numerous controller prototypes of different design against
proof-of-concept games on focus groups, and I'm sure they arrived at
the conclusion that the one they ended up presenting proved
statistically the most "fun". In other words, they're taking a
risk, but it's a measured risk: they know what they're doing.