Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
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.
Scared of flying, pointy things snce 1979!
Just look at history, since Sony has entered the console market every one they have faced has used the exact same strategy (better graphics, conventional controller, more features, etc.) and has lost; in fact if you compare the strategy of the XBox 360 with that of the Dreamcast there is a remarkable similarity (focus on online service, built in network connection, released a year early, etc.). Sony is so effective because they're masters of the super generic console.
The only time Sony has been humbled is with the Nintendo DS which decided to change things up dramatically; whereas all systems Sony faced before used conventional input the DS has a Microphone and Touch Screen; all systems Sony faced before pushed for greater graphics whereas the Nintendo DS focused settled on a much more modest graphical level; and finally where every system that faced Sony before lacked decent Backwards compatibility, the Nintendo DS contained a catelog of games from one of the most popular platforms ever.
Now the Revolution has many similar charateristics to the DS, they both use a more conventional game medium (DVD and SD [like] flash memory), they have a well established back catelog, they have new input possibilities, they're both (expected) to be affordable, neither are focused on being the graphical powerhouse, etc.
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.)
"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.
"Derp de derp."