Nintendo To Dominate Next Generation?

Via GameSetWatch, an editorial on the site Firing Squad suggesting that Nintendo is poised for a gaming industry coup. Their unique controller and appeal to casual gamers, the author posits, will turn the status quo on its head. From the article: "The cheapness of the console will help it sell and it's unlikely that Nintendo will face production shortages since it won't use exotic and difficult-to-make components. With a large installed owner base, more developers will be inclined to take a shot at it, publishers will feel pressured to release key titles (like Madden) for the Revolution regardless of their past GameCube experience. The controller is standard enough to work for most titles - so Xbox and PlayStation games will most likely work on the Revolution without major trouble, yet that same controller offers unique features that will be difficult to replicate for Microsoft's and Sony's consoles."

Comments

Look at it this way:

[Txiasaeia]

They've said all along that "standard" controllers will work with the rev (crossing my fingers for native compatibility with my wavebird). So the next Prince of Persia game will be released for all three next-gen platforms, right? But Electroplankton Revo or Tokyo Laser Symphony Revo will only work with the revo's unique controller - playing games built for the revo controller on a PS3 or an Xbox360 is like playing Donkey Konga with the standard gamecube controller.

Anyway, it makes sense that the revo will get independent and interesting games, if only because of the controller, while the other two consoles will get the same old, same old. Not that there's anything wrong with a new NHL game for the Xbox360 or PS3;)

Re:Look at it this way:

[Phantasmo]

You'll certainly be able to play Gamecube games on your Revolution using your current Wavebird. However, I'd be surprised if Revolution games would be able to use the Gamecube controller connectors. By implementing the "classic" controller as a shell over the Revolution controller, you'd get the gyro features in addition to standard control sticks and shoulder buttons. Also, Nintendo likes money so why not force people to buy a controller + shell?

A couple of prerequesites

[Sockatume]

This depends heavily on the public being interested in the system. Nintendo were able to churn out GCs super-cheap for years without taking over the market. Of course, the PS2 and Xbox were already around in large numbers and getting price cuts by that stage- a £130 Revolution going up against a limited stock of £300 360s and PS3s would have a more impressive advantage.

This will also depend on the public, especially non-gamers, "getting" the controller, which will require really good in-store demos.

There's always the risk that good value will backfire in the face of percieved value - namely, that the Revolution will be looked upon as cheap and underpowered in comparison to its competitors.

Finally, there's the assumption that the Revolution will use no exotic, hard-to-produce components. You've got to wonder if the little motion-sensor widgets for pitch/roll/yaw are going to be a rate limiting step in production.

Re:A couple of prerequesites

[Anonymous Coward]

You've got to understand that Third Parties are really excited about the Revolution for reasons that Sony and Microsoft can not understand ...

For the top 10% of developers the controller is a big selling point; when you're making a big budget game (like Resident Evil) it is becoming increasingly difficult to seperate your product from the dozens of other products in the market place. If Sega Releases Virtual Fighter and Namco releases Tekken at about the same time how can you encourage someone to buy your game instead of the competing game when they look and play on a very similar level and have similar marketing budgets; thus both developers spend $10 Million on a game and neither does as well as it could have because the games are not distinct enough. With the wider range of control setups new sub genres can be created which should enable developers to make a more distinct product.

The Revolutions' 'weaker' graphics (unknown graphical specifications brings this into question, a better term would be Nintendo's de-emphasis on graphics) attracts all game developers. Whether you're a tiny developer producing games with your 10 best friends, or a massive company like EA, the graphical push behind games produces an increasingly high cost to produce games which is troublesome. The fact is that Noname Development house wants to enter the market while EA wants to produce new markets and the high cost hurts both goals; for EA, they want to sell games to both teenage girls and Grandparents but couldn't risk $10-$20 Million on a game with expected sales of 100K.

Its the Revolution I'm looking forward too

[el_womble]

In the last round of the console wars I went with the XBox and the GC. I really enjoyed the XBox, but as an ex-PC gamer, felt that I was just regurgitating IDs back-catalogue, but with slightly better graphics. The GC provided me with the most fun. The games were cheaper, had greater variety, and for all the fun of Halo 2 Live, playing drink monkey ball proved that its was more important to be able to punch your opponent in the real world, than snipe them from behind a exquisitly rendered rock on Live.

I still don't understand what all the fuss was/is about the PS2. Lifes too short to watch progress bars, when your supposed to be having fun.

Being able to play Nintendo's entire back catalogue sounds too good to be true. Finally having a controller that reacts to its possition in space has been the aspiration of every gamer since the 80s - the only thing that could top that is having a game that gives you extra control when you stick your tounge out ;)

I don't care that its not HD. Even if I buy one HD TV in the next year, that will be one in a house of 4 TVs. I've yet to see any real evidence that I need it. As my PC improved I was able to play Half-life at 640x480, then 800x600 and finally 1024x768. It was the graphics that got better, not the game. It may add a layer of realism to the game, but Doom 3 proved that once you stop looking at the eye-candy it's the underlying gameplay that makes the game worth the money.

Re:For any other company, it would just be a gimmi

[Glytch]

But because Nintendo is making the controller, it's automatically going to reshape the gaming landscape. Such claims need to be taken with a rather large grain of salt - Virtual Boy, anyone?

Force-feedback, anyone? Analog stick, anyone? Shoulder buttons, anyone? Yeah, no-one else has every used anything that Nintendo's pioneered on its' controllers. That would be just plain nutty.

(And I'll put good money on the odds that the PSP2 will have a touch screen, and that the PS4 and Xbox720 controllers will have accelerometers.)

Re:For any other company, it would just be a gimmi

[NanoGator]

"4 Controller Ports, Bally Astrocade, 1980"

Virtually non-existent again until the N64. Now it's standard fare on everything except the Sony systems.

"Analog stick, Emerson Arcadia, 1982"

Virtually non-existent again until the N64. Now it's standard fare on everything.

"Rumble, Sony Dual Analog Japanese version, 1996 (Rumble Pack was 1997)"

Nintendo's Rumble Pack was announced well before the Dual Analog Sony controller came out. This is the exact reason Nintendo was so secretive about the Rev controller.

I never used the word invent. Nintendo's been leading the controller parade since the SNES. They have also been leading the portable parade, despite bringing up the Virtual Boy.