A First Look At E3 2006

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by Zonk on Thursday January 26, 2006 @07:53AM from the there-will-be-games-there dept.

GameDaily has a look at what we can expect from the big names at E3 this year. From the article: "It's do or die time for Nintendo as far as the company's future consoles are concerned. The Revolution will be a key portion of Nintendo's pre-E3 press event. We expect to see at least three titles up and running on the show floor, as well as a handful of titles in video form from Nintendo and a few third party developers. Nintendo will also be hyping up its retro downloads service for the Revolution, and will likely have several classics playable using the Revolution controller."

51 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

*sigh* by voice_of_all_reason · 2006-01-26 08:00 · Score: 0, Troll

Nintendo will also be hyping up its retro downloads service for the Revolution, and will likely have several classics playable using the Revolution controller.

do download nesticle,download smb3.nes,play rom
Do: done!
1. Re:*sigh* by Eightyford · 2006-01-26 08:04 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Some people don't mind supporting companies that provide a worthwhile service. I'd rather play Mario on my TV than on my computer.
  
  --
  Religion for nerds. Stuff that really matters
2. Re:*sigh* by jchenx · 2006-01-26 08:14 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Your comment reminds me of a friend of mine. He was a HUGE Sega/Dreamcast fan, and boasted of having hundreds of games. When I went over to his place, I saw that they were all burned copies. He always complained how it was a shame that the Dreamcast never did well. Gee, I wonder why ...
  
  Sometimes spending money IS the better thing to do, especially if you like the products and services being offered.
  
  --
  -- jchenx
3. Re:*sigh* by SCHecklerX · 2006-01-26 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  Then what is your excuse for why M$ actually is doing well?
4. Re:*sigh* by voice_of_all_reason · 2006-01-26 08:25 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  I already own Super Mario 3. Twice (the original cart and the game boy advance version). Therefore, I should be provided with free upgrades for life. If Nintendo feels different -- well, that's what the internets are for.
5. Re:*sigh* by Eightyford · 2006-01-26 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  I already own Super Mario 3. Twice (the original cart and the game boy advance version). Therefore, I should be provided with free upgrades for life. If Nintendo feels different -- well, that's what the internets are for.
  
  Just because there is a new verion out doesn't mean that your old carts will stop working. In my opinion, as long as the ROM image is the same, fair use applies; but I disagree in cases like Mario 64 for the DS.
  
  --
  Religion for nerds. Stuff that really matters
6. Re:*sigh* by jchenx · 2006-01-26 08:30 · Score: 1
  
  If I remember correctly, you could load pirated games on the DC w/o needing a mod chip. All it took was a disc loader. With the PS2 and Xbox, though, you do need to mod the box. That's not all that difficult, mind you, but that's a large enough hurdle for most folks. (I know this is only anecdotal evidence, but out of the handful of DC owners I knew, ALL of them had at least a few pirated games that they would have purchased otherwise)
  
  There are other reasons why I think the Xbox has fared a lot better than the Dreamcast, but you probably don't care about that.
  
  --
  -- jchenx
7. Re:*sigh* by jchenx · 2006-01-26 08:44 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  I already own Super Mario 3. Twice (the original cart and the game boy advance version). Therefore, I should be provided with free upgrades for life. If Nintendo feels different -- well, that's what the internets are for.
  
  Okay, I know this probably a troll post, but I can't help but bite.
  
  What you own is the physical medium the game came on, and whatever warranty that comes with them. If the cart stopped working yesterday, do you expect Nintendo to just give you a new one free of charge? It's the same way with ANY physical product. True, some products have a lifetime warranty, but last I checked, video games don't have that.
  
  And Nintendo certainly didn't sell you the right to play SMB 3 till the end of time, no matter what platform it is on. In many cases, the re-releases of the game come with additional features, so you ARE getting more than just the original game. (Things like leaderboards, multiplayer functionality, hidden levels, etc.) Typically the re-releases are cheaper than standard titles, which most folks think is fair enough. But it's certainly not free.
  
  If you still think Nintendo is screwing you over and thus will pirate every copy of every Nintendo game you've ever owned, then so be it. Just don't complain if they go out of business a few years later, due to low sales.
  
  --
  -- jchenx
8. Re:*sigh* by LWATCDR · 2006-01-26 09:08 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think you can pirate a copy of a Nintendo game you own. I can see your point about a new version of the game for a new console but if I own SMB3 but my Nintendo breaks I would say that downloading a copy to run on an emulator is completely legal and moral.
  
  --
  See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
9. Re:*sigh* by jchenx · 2006-01-26 09:27 · Score: 1
  
  IANAL, so I don't know if that's "completely legal". I imagine it might qualify as fair-use perhaps? Then again, what happens if Nintendo starts selling copies of their retro titles on their own brand of emulator? That would change things significantly.
  
  It wouldn't surprise me if Nintendo started going after ROM and emulator sites even more than they are now, if their retro-library on the Revolution really started taking off. It'd be a bit saddening really though, since you know most of those users are really hard-core Nintendo fans.
  
  --
  -- jchenx
10. Re:*sigh* by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2006-01-26 09:36 · Score: 1
  
  "He always complained how it was a shame that the Dreamcast never did well. Gee, I wonder why ..."
  
  Sega didn't have enough money to build the millions of machines they'd have needed to sell, then the PS2 came along. A suddend stop of piracy would not have made the slighest difference in the fate of that system.
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
11. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-26 09:54 · Score: 0
  
  So what does that say about the Gamecube being third in sales behind PS2 and XBox?
12. Re:*sigh* by jchenx · 2006-01-26 10:13 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I didn't mean to indicate that piracy was the ONLY reason the Dreamcast bombed. There were a ton of problems that hit Sega. I happen to think one major reason was all the Sony FUD. All the claims of the "Emotion Engine" and Toy Story-like rendering came out around that time. Many gamers, like myself, opted to just wait an extra year for the PS2. By the time the buzz came out that the DC actually had a lot of decent games, I was already hooked to the PS2 and it was too late to get another console, especially one that you could SEE was spiraling downwards.
  
  That said, I'm sure the piracy couldn't have helped the DC survive. (I think that claims of being able to try games before you buy them generates sales, are highly exaggerated ... most of the folks I knew that pirated games liked, never ended up buying them)
  
  --
  -- jchenx
13. Re:*sigh* by cornface · 2006-01-26 10:22 · Score: 1
  
  Some people don't mind supporting companies that provide a worthwhile service. I'd rather play Mario on my TV than on my computer.
  
  TV-out?
14. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-26 11:08 · Score: 0
  
  But what if you play the NES/SNES emulator via another TV ready device like a Dreamcast or modified Xbox? I have played NES many times via NesterDC on the Dreamcast and the Xbox.
  
  Both were worthwhile experiences, but the Xbox one was better for emulation of NES, SNES, Genesis, and other older systems.
15. Re:*sigh* by JFMulder · 2006-01-26 14:44 · Score: 1
  
  See it this way : if your car broke, would it be legal and moral to steal someone else's car, even if it's the exact same model?
16. Re:*sigh* by diablomonic · 2006-01-26 14:58 · Score: 1
  
  look, im not saying that what parents parents parent said is ok, personally I think its a grey area, although if the game is EXACTLY the same as one you've already bought (sp?)(especially one you've bought twice), no upgrades/extra bits, then morally I dont have a problem, however, YOU CAN NOT COMPARE IT TO STEALING SOMEONES CAR, unless its a MAGICAL CAR THAT DUPLICATES ITSELF ONCE STOLEN SO THE OWNER DOESN'T EVEN REALISE IT's STOLEN!!!!! (ok enough angry caps, I know I know, dont use caps etc sorry I just couldnt help it :P)
  all legality and morality aside, downloading a rom for a game you own is nothing at all like stealing someones car. The only metaphor I can think of thats even close is copying a custom paint job off one of your old cars onto a new one without telling the artist, and then parking that new car in the garage so no one sees it anyway :)
  enough stupid RIAA MPAA AAAAA ISUCKAA propaganda already, make your own mind up as to the consequences of your actions with the game designer/artist/musicians interest in mind, not the greedy corporations exploiting them. (although this wont help ya if you get sued by said corp :( )
  
  --
  watch "the money masters" on google video
17. Re:*sigh* by LWATCDR · 2006-01-26 15:15 · Score: 1
  
  That is just dumb. It is more like this. You own a car and the car company stops making it. The car breaks so you take the engine out and build a new car around it.
  You bought the right to use the game. How you use that game really is up to you as along as you don't sell it or give it to someone that you know doesn't have the rights to it.
  Good grief. Next you will say that taking a program that you bought for windows and running it under wine is stealing.
  Running a game you own on an emulator is so not stealing from anyone.
  
  --
  See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
I love e3 by Deliveranc3 · 2006-01-26 08:01 · Score: 1

Hype for an event which is hyping some stuff that may or may not be released before the next E3...

This is just wacky fun!
What we won't see... by lpangelrob · 2006-01-26 08:01 · Score: 1

...are booth babes, as I seem to have been reminded of 4 times in the past week.
In fact, if we can have more /. stories about the lack of booth babes than pictures of booth babes themselves this year... that would be wonderfully depressing. Thanks.

--
-Rob
Biblical fiscal responsibility
1. Re:What we won't see... by RegalBegal · 2006-01-26 08:16 · Score: 1
  
  What? No Booth babes?! I'm quitting video games and I'm gonna git me an education!!
  
  --
  "It'll destroy you if you try to make it mean anything to anyone but yourself." - Henry Rollins
2. Re:What we won't see... by freidog · 2006-01-26 08:51 · Score: 1
  
  You could always Print out some photos of booth babes from E3s of yesteryear and take them along as comfort soft porn.
  
  Of course, most of us don't need scantily clad women with odd hair colors to enjoy new video games, just to enhance them
not really a first look by Wootzor+von+Leetenha · 2006-01-26 08:22 · Score: 1

more like a first guess and some more speculation about what E3 2006 might be like...

--
My name is Wootzor von Leetenhaxor
Sony by Eightyford · 2006-01-26 08:23 · Score: 1, Funny

I don't see how sony could ever top the "emotion engine" in the playstation 2. We all know that ps2 games are the graphical equivalent to a realtime Toy Story...

--
Religion for nerds. Stuff that really matters
1. Re:Sony by Eightyford · 2006-01-26 10:06 · Score: 1
  
  Okay, I admit that my above joke wasn't exactly a knee-slapper, but it should be noted that the correct way to mod a bad joke is to click on -1 overrated.
  
  --
  Religion for nerds. Stuff that really matters
2. Re:Sony by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-27 00:10 · Score: 0
  
  No, the reallity is that the joke was nice, it is called sarcasm but you were victirm of a stupid moderator or a Sony fanboy one, I am posting as AC just in case I get mod points because I will mod you up. +1 insightful (funny does not give karma bonus) +1 funny.
  
  Btw, when meta moderating, if you see an insightful or interesting mod on something funny think that it was done because funny mod is broken.
  
  Xtracto
Could nintendo survive on handhelds? by SmallFurryCreature · 2006-01-26 08:30 · Score: 1

That certainly seems to be an area where they can compete. The hardware is profitable and doesn't take next generation technology to develop. The software is cheaper to design for. And the prices are virtually the same.
This leads me to conclude that Nintendo is cleaning up on its entire handheld business. You can't really tell me that a game like Nintendogz or Animal Crossing DS cost the same to produce as a "full" console game. Yet they sell close to full price.
I never really could figure out why handhelds are considered seperate from consoles anyway. Is it bit like not counting card games as full games. Excluding pinball from arcade games.
So do they really need to succeed with the revolution considering how well the DS is doing. Especially since it was claimed the DS was NOT the true succesor to the GBA. That honor is for an as yet unknown handheld.
For a GBA.5 the DS ain't doing bad at all. In fact many "big" console makers would wish they could sell the same amounts, Eh Microsoft?
Or can a nintendo only sell handhelds because it has the big consoles in its catalog? I doubt it. Nintendo will be around even if the revolution fails UNLESS they are wasting all their profits from the handhelds on it to the point where they leech that division of the funds needed to go to the next generation of handhelds. That would be stupid. But hey this the game industry, stupid is what they do best.

--

MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
1. Re:Could nintendo survive on handhelds? by jchenx · 2006-01-26 08:49 · Score: 1
  
  So do they really need to succeed with the revolution considering how well the DS is doing. Especially since it was claimed the DS was NOT the true succesor to the GBA. That honor is for an as yet unknown handheld.
  
  I wonder if they just claimed that to hedge their bets, in case the DS didn't do well. Then they could claim to their shareholders and fans, "Umm, yeah, so that didn't work out too well ... fortunately we can go back to making REAL Gameboys!". Much the same way they treated the Virtual Boy and swept it under the rug, never to return.
  
  Now that the DS has seen critical AND commercial success, I would be totally fine with them declaring that the DS is the official GB platform now. It would seem rather silly to have TWO branches of portables, one of which seems very much a superset of the other one. And I'd hate to have to buy both portables and their respective games, from now on.
  
  --
  -- jchenx
2. Re:Could nintendo survive on handhelds? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-26 08:53 · Score: 0
  
  The number i have heard tossed around for DS games is around the $300,000 mark. Many AAA home console titles are in the range of $15M or higher; this puts your average DS title at about 2% of the development cost, but about 65% of the retail cost. Pretty dang good deal if you ask me :)
3. Re:Could nintendo survive on handhelds? by pembo13 · 2006-01-26 09:37 · Score: 1
  
  The DS plays GBA games.
  
  --
  "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
4. Re:Could nintendo survive on handhelds? by jchenx · 2006-01-26 09:46 · Score: 1
  
  Umm, yes, that's exactly why I said that the DS is a superset of the GBA product line. Your point is?
  
  --
  -- jchenx
5. Re:Could nintendo survive on handhelds? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-26 09:47 · Score: 0
  
  Make no mistake, the DS is the successor to the GBA.
6. Re:Could nintendo survive on handhelds? by Clockwurk · 2006-01-26 11:51 · Score: 1
  
  Yet they sell close to full price.
  
  Thats not quite true. Most "A" list DS games sell for $30-35 with most other console games games going for $50-60. 30-50% cheaper is not what I call "close to full price".
7. Re:Could nintendo survive on handhelds? by pembo13 · 2006-01-26 12:41 · Score: 1
  
  Well since you made this comment:
  And I'd hate to have to buy both portables and their respective games, from now on.
  Seemed like you were implying that you couldn't just get a DS andplay games from both DS and GBA. I guess I misunderstood.
  
  --
  "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
8. Re:Could nintendo survive on handhelds? by jchenx · 2006-01-26 12:45 · Score: 1
  
  Ahh, I guess that could have been confusing. When I made that comment, I was referring to a future GB platform. I assume that the successor to the GB will use a different format for their games, and that would not be compatible with the DS. Then again, Nintendo seems to be doing a good job with backwards compatibility with their handhelds, so maybe they'll make games for the future GB (if there is one) compatible with the DS.
  
  --
  -- jchenx
9. Re:Could nintendo survive on handhelds? by justchris · 2006-01-26 15:56 · Score: 1
  
  To answer your first question: Yes they could.
  
  The thing is, Nintendo has a lot of people working for them who enjoy making video games. As long as they have a home console that makes them money, they'll continue to stay in the home console business to make the larger, higher budget games, cause it's what they like doing.
  
  To answer your second question, Nintendo might change their mind and make the DS the next gameboy, but I don't think they will. For one thing, gameboy has always been backwards compatible, and while DS plays GBA games, it doesn't play older GB & GBC games. Also, handhelds usually have a longer life cycle than home consoles, 10 years instead of 5. If they can do staggered releases, something in the GB line every 10 years, something in the DS line every 10 years, and a home Nintendo every 5 years, with the releases properly staggered, they can sell all 3 and make even more money than just selling any one of them.
  
  So the answer to your question is, no one knows yet if the DS is the next gameboy or not. I'd say Nintendo probably hasn't made up their mind on it yet, and honestly, I'd rather they focus on the Revolution for now before they get into that sort of thing.
  
  --
  just some guy
10. Re:Could nintendo survive on handhelds? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-26 20:03 · Score: 0
  
  Unless the new GB will use gamecube discs giving it a large back catalog and any revolution owners could play the new GB games also this way they can extend the life of the gamecube
11. Re:Could nintendo survive on handhelds? by paedobear · 2006-01-26 21:09 · Score: 0
  
  The GBA Micro dosen't play GB/GBC games either though: backwards compatibility isn't a requirement it seems.
12. Re:Could nintendo survive on handhelds? by justchris · 2006-01-26 21:45 · Score: 1
  
  Yeeeeaaaaahhh, I don't exactly consider the GBM part of the gameboy line so much as a novelty. I personally think the whole thing is ridiculous, but I can understand why Nintendo is making money off of it. The original GBA is just perfect for my hands, I don't need anything smaller. The next console in the gameboy line, whatever it ends up being, is probably going to be more in line with the DS or GBASP in shape and size than the micro, and therefore will probably be backwards compatible.
  But I could be wrong.
  
  --
  just some guy
13. Re:Could nintendo survive on handhelds? by paedobear · 2006-01-27 00:23 · Score: 0
  
  Well, surely the next in line is the "DS lite", which does for the DS what the micro did for the GBA.
14. Re:Could nintendo survive on handhelds? by eboot · 2006-01-27 00:41 · Score: 1
  
  Actually the DS Lite is only the second revision of the DS, correcting the complaints about the console's first iteration. Much like GBA SP did for the GBA in fact. The DS micro on the other hand will be really small, so much so that Nintendo will discover a whole new market of small simians who enjoy mobile gaming on two screens between flinging crap at each other. Unfortunately they will be beaten by Microsoft's handheld which will tap into the lucrative Gorilla market, which lets face it, is so much larger.
  
  --
  Two tears in a bucket. Motherfuck it.
15. Re:Could nintendo survive on handhelds? by Jacius · 2006-01-27 04:37 · Score: 1
  
  It would seem rather silly to have TWO branches of portables, one of which seems very much a superset of the other one. And I'd hate to have to buy both portables and their respective games, from now on.
  
  [WARNING: SARCASM DETECTED]
  
  Very true. It's also silly to have so many branches of cars. SUVs, trucks, and small cars... it's all so confusing! They should just make one type of car so we wouldn't have to decide. After all, everybody has the same needs and budgets, right?
  
  P.S. What's up with computer manufacturers offering fast, expensive PCs alongside slower but cheaper PCs? The expensive PCs can do everything the cheap ones can, so why wouldn't everyone just buy the most expensive PC on the market?
16. Re:Could nintendo survive on handhelds? by jchenx · 2006-01-27 07:03 · Score: 1
  
  Very true. It's also silly to have so many branches of cars. SUVs, trucks, and small cars... it's all so confusing! They should just make one type of car so we wouldn't have to decide. After all, everybody has the same needs and budgets, right?
  
  So handhelds = vehicles now? :)
  
  Your analogy doesn't apply for many reasons. In the portable space, there's (at the moment) only two real manufacturers: Nintendo and Sony. And the consumer typically only uses one product at a time. I know this is anecdotal, but I know very few people that own BOTH a DS and a PSP, and none of them actively use both. Most folks find what they like and then just stick to it. (Remember that these gamers are probably already buying games for their non-handheld consoles too!) Heck, you can even see that with the DS and the GBA SP. Once I got the DS, I don't actively look for GBA SP games anymore, even though the DS is compatible with its games.
  
  Why would you split your userbase between the GB and DS? There's a few reasons why you would: 1) There are a lot of people that really like one platform, but not the other, or 2) There are a lot of people that will purchase both systems. For #1, I'd argue that this doesn't apply. Most GB users, when they get their hands on a DS, like what they see. Are there that many people that DON'T like the DS and will only get a GB? (Assuming things like price are relatively the same). As for #2, I honestly don't know. Certainly you've got a lot of people (like me), who owned a GBA SP but got a DS anyway to check it out. But I can honestly say that I'm hesitant on doing that again. Gaming is already expensive for me to now support yet another platform line.
  
  Having multiple platforms is not only difficult for the consumer (who has to decide which one to choose, and do I want both?), but also for the developer. We already saw how it took a while for companies to learn how to utilize the DS touch-pad and dual-screens. If the next GB utilized yet another new control mechanism, then it just makes it even harder for developers. Then there's also the case of choosing which platform to support with your games. If I'm Capcom, the thought of now having to make TWO Mega Man games, one for the DS and one for the future GB (both of which have to make use of each platform's unique features, not be a simple port), is painful. Chances are, you're just going to develop for the platform that's more popular at the moment. Again, you can see that now, with most new games coming out for the DS and not the GBA SP.
  
  Would the market support TWO Nintendo handhelds along with Sony's PSP? Probably, but honestly I think it's risky for Nintendo to spread themselves out like this. I think it'd be smarter for them to just focus on the DS and put whatever new features they want on THAT platform. I'd be more than happy to see them completely blow away the PSP.
  
  --
  -- jchenx
The one question by afgha · 2006-01-26 08:43 · Score: 0, Redundant

Yeah, fine with 'em all these guys, buy you all know there is only one question: will we see DUKE NUKEM FOREVER this year?

Waiting for a poll on /. with funny answers on this topic...
Awesome. by RyoShin · 2006-01-26 09:49 · Score: 1

I can't wait for this year's E3. Even without a press pass, many gaming websites now update by-the-minute for the Big Three's opening demonstrations, meaning I can get details as they trickle in, instead of waiting for news later that morning or night.

Revolution, as was the focus of the article summary, will be the "To see" item, as has been with most of Nintendo's hardware offerings. Yes, the PS3 is coming out this year as well, but that's just more of the same thing, offering better graphics and a few other things. Nintendo is heading into a whole new gaming territory with their spacial recognition controllers. Granted, it's been done before, but not on the scale or mass volume that Nintendo is planning.

We'll also find out the "final" name of the Revolution (though I like "Revolution" just fine). Plus, assuming that it doesn't come out before hand, we'll also see a playable near-final or final version of Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess.

Whatever we do play at E3 for the Rev will most likely be near-shippable product, as a summer release looks imminent.

Nintendo will most likely sweep the "E3 awards" given by many gaming publications, unless there's a major upset by a from-the-shadows contendor.

I disagree that, if it flops, the Revolution will be Nintendo's last console, however. They'll continue to support it, though lowly, turning out intuitive and interesting titles for it until they're ready for their next console, and just try it again. In the mean time, they'll ride out whatever financial harm the Revolution may do by diving into the many hundereds of Scrooge McDuck Vaults o' Money that they have stored away from the successes that are the GBA and DS.
Nintendo's Keynote by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-26 11:26 · Score: 0

Nintendo's Keynote is always the best part of E3; unlike Sony or Microsoft, Nintendo doesn't try to sell products nearly as much as they try to sell their philosophy. You can not leave Nintendo's Key note without being excited about the Direction Nintendo is headed in, or in the products they're producing.
3d Realms Head says, "Die" by sesshomaru · 2006-01-26 14:15 · Score: 1

Well not actually, but the head of 3d realms did say he expect:
3D Realms CEO Scott Miller has revealed that he has yet to get his hands on an Xbox 360 - despite the fact that his studio is supposed to be developing a game for the console.
In a post on his blog, Miller wrote: "I've yet to touch the controller of any [next-gen console]. I can't find a X360 to buy in stores, and we have yet to get a development machine sent from Microsoft even though Prey is being developed for their system."
Miller went on to make a number of predictions regarding the next-gen systems, stating that he reckons the Xbox 360 and PS3 "Will wind up about equal in terms of sales, with Nintendo's Revolution coming in a distant third."
"Perhaps this will be the last console from this company," Miller added.

Oh, and he also thinks banning booth babes is a good idea, article here

--
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
PC Games? by dyslexicbunny · 2006-01-26 15:07 · Score: 1

Since I'm pretty much sold on my next-gen console choice, I could care less about the hype.

I primarily play PC games and I was pretty sure they make showings at E3. Where is their mention? 2005 was a lackluster year in PC gaming (generally) and hopefully 2006 will be better. But considering the market diversity, I could understand not mentioning it however, one would think they would touch on hot titles for the year.

Dragonage won best in show in 2004 and I've seen little since. Bioware has pretty much been saying it will be ready when it's ready but eventually people forget about it and move on. Two years is too long to just sit there and show nothing.
Last time I checked, X-Box did not do well. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-26 18:39 · Score: 0

Four billion dollars ring a bell?

That amount would've sunk other, smaller companies. But Microsoft isn't a gaming company, and can afford to soak the hit.
Two Markets by LKM · 2006-01-26 19:47 · Score: 1

It would seem rather silly to have TWO branches of portables, one of which seems very much a superset of the other one.

I'd love to see a true GBA successor from Nintendo (with better graphics, analog sticks, and so on). I think the portable market can sustain at least two different architectures (see DS and PSP, which seems to be doing acceptably, despite the fact that there are pretty much no good games available for it). If you can own both of these markets, why not do it?

If Nintendo came out with a GBA successor in, say, a year, which would be both cheaper than the PSP and beat it graphics-wise, they might pick up a fair bit of market share without hurting the DS too much, since it is so unique.

People would still buy DS consoles for the games which can't be bought on any other console, and they would buy a GBA2 simply because it would be the newest, best portable console.
Oh sorry, I play PC games by SmallFurryCreature · 2006-01-26 21:44 · Score: 1

And I do so DS games wich cost the same as full price PC games. 39.95 euro for both in holland. Sure some PC games go to 49.95 but some of the DS games are more expensive at launch as well.
Sorry but I don't do big consoles. I remember that all the games I want to play cost a lot more on the consoles then the PC version.
So your right, I should have made it clear I meant PC prices. My bad.

--

MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.