Nintendo Promises 3rd Party Support

Eurogamer reports on claims by George Harrison (NoA's Senior VP for Marketing) that the Revolution will feature extensive third-party support in the coming years. From the article: "'One of the lessons we tried to learn from GameCube was that we kept things too close. And so as we got ready to launch, we had some of our own great games but third parties were kind of behind the eight ball in terms of being able to have games ready,' Harrison stated. In terms of early support for the Revolution, which launches this year alongside Sony's PS3, third party software ought to be available in abundance, Harrison confirming 'We've got more than 1,000 developer kits including the controller kits, out, so there should be plenty there.'"

Comments

Interesting

[Knight Thrasher]

Since we've seen that the Revolution isn't revolutionary hardware-wise, which means the games won't be all about the graphics, we may see some kickass storyline games that are well-written around this system.

On the other hand, we may see silly shoot-em-up games with the new controller. It's a coinflip until the system has been on the shelves for a few months, really.

Re:Interesting

[ClamIAm]

The thing is, we don't know how powerful the system will be until we see the games. The Cube wasn't really expected to be super extremely powerful, yet its graphics output was much closer to the Xbox than the PS2. I think it's definitely too early to judge.

Re:Interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

We have three things to base the comparison to the Gamecube on. First, Nintendo folks have actually said it will roughly be twice as powerful as the Gamecube. Second, developers back that up. Third, rumoured spec leaks also point to that conclusion (the architecture is similiar to the Gamecube's so it is very possible to directly compare clockrates and such).

There really isn't any benchmark against the Xbox 360 and PS3, though. Both of those consoles will handle HD resolution while the Revolution won't, which stresses the hardware less. The architectures are also significantly different from the Revolution, and it's hard to compare them even to the Xbox and PS2 with all the crazed hype. I just know what game developers have been hinting at on the net, and that is that the Revolution will be the weakest of the three, but still powerful enough to provide very nice graphics and gameplay on the 480i/p resolutions.

Re:Interesting

[edwdig]

which means the games won't be all about the graphics, we may see some kickass storyline games that are well-written around this system.

Screw storyline. If that's what you want, you're better off going with the systems with tons of storage and graphics capabilities.

How about instead we hope for games that are fun to play. Heavy emphesis on the storyline tends to put more limits on the gameplay.

Re:Interesting

[pembo13]

Can't we hope for both?

Re:Interesting

[Digital Vomit]

Since we've seen that the Revolution isn't revolutionary hardware-wise...

I know you are talking about processing power (I think the Rev is only supposed to be three times as powerful as the Cube), but it should be said that the controller idea they have come up with could be considered pretty revolutionary hardware.

And Nintendo still claims there are other as-yet-undisclosed surprises...

Re:Interesting

[Eideewt]

I have to agree. If you want storyline, you're probably after a book or movie and not a game at all. Gameplay is what games are about, and while storyline is great as icing, it won't make a game.

Re:Interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

Third, rumoured spec leaks also point to that conclusion (the architecture is similiar to the Gamecube's so it is very possible to directly compare clockrates and such).

The problem with rumored specs is it is impossible to determine which rumors to listen to; everyone claims to have an inside source while no one says who their source is. Matt from IGN lied (or was lied to [and foolishly believed it]) and I can say that for a fact; Nintendo has never released a system which was not a dramatic technical improvement over their previous generation system, and Iwata and Myiamoto have both said that you "wouldn't notice a difference between the systems on a standard definition TV".

Nintendo has been low-balling their estimate because of one obvious thing: Resident Evil 4 (and a few other current generation titles) look nearly as good as anything on the XBox 360. I'm not trying to bash the XBox 360 but games that had the extra processing power (or games that used pre-rendering) are at a level of graphics where they're nearly good enough. Think of Soul Calibur 2, Resident Evil (remake, 0 and 4), Rogue Leader, etc. if these games were running at 1080p they'd be competative (visually) with anything we'll see in the next generation.

I'm not trying to be negative about the PS3 or XBox 360, but Sony and Microsoft have spent Hundreds of Millions of dollars of dollars to gain 10%-15% of performance; whereas (I'm willing to bet) Nintendo went to ATI and IBM and asked for a reasonable performance increase for a modest price tag. Essentially, what I'm saying is that where Microsoft and Sony have been targeting an X2 4800+ and a Geforce 7800 Nintedo focused on a X2 3800+ and a Geforce 7600; there are differences, the most dramatic one is the price.

Re:Interesting

[c_forq]

we may see some kickass storyline games that are well-written around this system.

I have to say some of the games I've had the most fun with have the weakest stories. For example Blaster Master has the great story of a kid catches a frog, the frog jumps down a hole, the kid follows and finds a tank. The rest of the game is classic side scrolling and top down blasting action. I don't remember an introduction to Contra, just start blasting mutants. Also Super-Monkey Ball was a complete blast, but I don't seem to remember a story at all.

Re:Interesting

[jensen404]

Nintendo has never released a system which was not a dramatic technical improvement over their previous generation system

They've also never released a home console with backwards compatibility. Although Matt's specs seam really low, they are the most plausible.

Re:Interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, and I'm a bit annoyed that my other points were ignored there. And, of course, no one really knows how powerful an Xbox 360 is compared to an Xbox, because Microsoft obfuscates benchmarks with hype. I have no doubt that games made for the Revolution won't look nice, especially with developers already having knowledge of the system's hardware from the Gamecube. The hardware does have it limitations though, such as the lack of HD support, so it is clear that Nintendo is not aiming for the graphics > gameplay crowd.

Re:Interesting

[tepples]

They've also never released a home console with backwards compatibility.

Not out of the box, but some Nintendo consoles can easily be made compatible:

• Super NES plus accessory is backward compatible with Game Boy (except titles that depend on the link cable).
• Nintendo GameCube plus accessory is backward compatible with Game Boy, Game Boy Color, and Game Boy Advance (except titles that depend on the camera, the tilt sensor, or full-motion video).
• Game Boy Advance, in turn, is backward compatible with NES ROM files through the (unofficial) GBA Movie Player accessory and a program called "PocketNES" developed by Loopy, FluBBa, and Dwedit. This setup also works on Nintendo GameCube plus accessory.

So yes, you can run NES ROMs on a suitably equipped GameCube.

Re:Interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

Since we've seen that the Revolution isn't revolutionary hardware-wise,

What? I wasnt aware there was ever a controller like the revolution on a home console, ever.

Or are you talking about graphical power? Well, graphics are so good these days that a visual comparison can only be made my anal retentive nerds.

Re:Interesting

[Deliveranc3]

Cough Fahrenheit.

Fahrenheit would have been EVEN MORE AMAZING on the revolution, held back that the mini games needed to use the old style of controllers :(

Re:Interesting

[hkmwbz]

"If you want storyline, you're probably after a book or movie and not a game at all."

I disagree.

Sure, some games work fine without a storyline.

But a storyline helps suck you into the game. It gives what you are doing in the game a purpose. It can help you immerse in the game, create an atmosphere, along with the graphics.

Re:Interesting

[hkmwbz]

"Nintendo folks have actually said it will roughly be twice as powerful as the Gamecube."

No, they did not. The refuse to comment.

Re:Interesting

[Haeleth]

If you want storyline, you're probably after a book or movie and not a game at all. Gameplay is what games are about, and while storyline is great as icing, it won't make a game.

Books have depth and stretch the imagination, but they don't have important stimuli like movement or soundtracks. Movies lack depth; there are simply limits to what you can fit into 90 minutes. Neither allows any form of interactivity, so you can't influence the plot in the slightest.

Various forms of interactive fiction - taking the depth and imaginative scope of a book, adding movement and sound as in movies, and introducing some form of interactivity to permit the player to have some limited control over the plot - are able to provide a different experience that is not available from books or movies.

Why shouldn't I want something like that?

Why should my entertainment be constrained to fit your narrow definition of what a game is?

Re:Interesting

[xtracto]

What I would like to have is the ability to obtain "low income" independent games. As an indepenent game developer I would be really interested in using the new revolution input capabilities to create Non-3D games . They could be sold/downloaded from wherever the NES,SNES and other games will be. Nintendo could ask for a percentage of each game sold.

Re:Interesting

[xtracto]

That way, me and a lot of other bejeweled like game makers could port our games to the Revolution platform taking advantage of the new input.

Unfortunately that does not seems plausible.

Re:Interesting

[Eideewt]

No reason. I'm not narrowly defining what a game is. I'm saying that without good gameplay, even a good story won't make a game, but a game can be good with no story at all. Shitty gameplay will just get in the way of a good story, whereas great gameplay will render a good story unnecessary. I generally prefer games with good stories too, but the thing that keeps me coming back is the gameplay. If all you're after is a good story, then you're not after a game. If you're after a good story with some degree of interactivity, then you're after a game with a good story and good gameplay -- which may be as simple as some decision making, in this case. Still, it's not just the story you're after, it's the gameplay. If you didn't want the gameplay then you would read a book.

Re:Interesting

[Eideewt]

I don't disagree. Storyline is often what makes good games into great games. I just think that story isn't the most important thing to a game's quality, and if your top priority is a good story, games may not do that best.

Re:Interesting

[fbjon]

while storyline is great as icing, it won't make a game.

Evidence to the contrary: Deus Ex.

stuff like this

[Dance_Dance_Karnov]

really illustrates the difference in style between Satoru Iwata and Hiroshi Yamauchi.

Re:stuff like this

[Anonymous Coward]

care to elavorate?

Re:stuff like this

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in Europe. Stuff like this is nothing.

Re:stuff like this

[Anonymous Coward]

It's "elaborate".

Elavorate sounds like something you do in the bathroom.

Hmm..

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

I'm really teeter-tottering on this. Nintendo has stated with EVERY console they've made in the last 10 years that it'll have extensive 3rd party support. I'm a raving Nintendo fanboy who believes everything Nintendo tells me, but I'm shaking my head reading this. "Prove it."

That said, there are some encouraging things in their favor:
1.) Development systems are very cheap.

2.) By most accounts, this hardware isn't all that different from the GC hardware, transitioning to it should be easy.

3.) We still do not have all of the details about the wi-fi service. Maybe they'll allow developers to release games exclusively for it?

4.) MS and Sony have standards in place about things such as HD support for their games. This means more asset creation which means more money to develop the game. The Rev, being somewhat inferior in terms of technology, has a much lower barrier to entry.

5.) The Nintendo DS is very popular, largely in part due to the attention paid to the interface and wifi connection. Perhaps more developers will see the Rev as less of a gamble.

So.. I'm undecided. Nintendo has promised this many before and hasn't delivered. Nintendo has also, however, changed their habits before. At least they recognize mistakes were made. So.. well I just don't know.

Re:Hmm..

[Brothernone]

I agree, at least nintendo does admit to and try to correct the mistakes they've made. I take my hat off to them for that.

Re:Hmm..

[Anonymous Coward]

You mention the DS, but the real example of where Nintendo has gone right with 3rd parties is the GBA. Development kits are dirt cheap for the GBA, you can even find open-source/free SDKs. The result is that any store I've been to that has a GBA section is almost always overflowing with games (even though probably >95% are total garbage). Hopefully Nintendo will/has transferred their 3rd party GBA model to the Revolution.

Re:Hmm..

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

"You mention the DS, but the real example of where Nintendo has gone right with 3rd parties is the GBA. Development kits are dirt cheap for the GBA, you can even find open-source/free SDKs. The result is that any store I've been to that has a GBA section is almost always overflowing with games (even though probably >95% are total garbage)."

To be fair, Nintendo has had a monopoly over portable gaming since before even the launch of the GBA. At least until the PSP came out, if you wanted to make a portable game, Nintendo was your only choice. It's probably fair of me to point out that the GBA came out before the GameCube, but the GC's third party support suffered badly. The reason I chose the DS is that it actually has a competent competitor. (and before anybody argues, the PSP has done FAR better than any other non-Nintendo portable.)

Japan Games

[techpawn]

Maybe we'll get some of those fun anime-ish RPG games that you can play with one hand now here in the U.S....

It might actually happen...

[KeiichiMorisato]

Hopefully this is true.

Nintendo has recently taken a partnership approach with other developers instead of the historical "Give me money, and I'll let you develop FOR us" approach.

With the recent praises from many third parties with regards to the Revolution, hopefully Nintendo will rise again.

Better have better 3rd Party Support...

[__aaclcg7560]

When I was a lead tester at Atari, I became the Nintendo guru (did 9 titles out of 10 for GameCube or AGB). Third party support didn't exist back then, the documentation was seriously lacking, testing multiplayer over the link took twice as long as testing the single player, and we were forced to beta test wireless link hardware for the AGB because their APIs were so poorly documented that their own support programmers got confused. Nintendo didn't care about 3rd party support until the new product announcements started leaving GameCube and AGB off as supported platforms. By then, it was too late for this pain in the ass.

Re:Better have better 3rd Party Support...

[Anonymous Coward]

What the heck is AGB?

If you mean the Game Boy Advance I'd say your entire post just started to reek of BS.

Re:Better have better 3rd Party Support...

[PhoenixFlare]

(did 9 titles out of 10 for GameCube or AGB)

we were forced to beta test wireless link hardware for the AGB

eaving GameCube and AGB

Samir Gupta? Is that you?

Obviously you have no great love for Nintendo, but c'mon....If you spent all that time working on it, you could at least get the acronym for the Game Boy Advance right.

Re:Better have better 3rd Party Support...

[__aaclcg7560]

What part of this or this do you dispute as BS?

Re:Better have better 3rd Party Support...

[__aaclcg7560]

Actually, AGB (GameBoy Advance) and GCN (GameCube) were used in Nintendo's documentation. I don't remember if these were the standard terminology that could be used in the games. Don't get me wrong. I love Nintendo as a platform. I just hated their 3rd party support which made my job a lot harder than someone else doing a Sony or Microsoft title.

Re:Better have better 3rd Party Support...

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at their reply to the comment above yours, their video game "Q&A testing" and "worked on" list explains it all.

If you spent all that time working on it, you could at least get the acronym for the Game Boy Advance right.
I think you are expecting too much from someone who works for Atari.

Re:Better have better 3rd Party Support...

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

"Obviously you have no great love for Nintendo, but c'mon....If you spent all that time working on it, you could at least get the acronym for the Game Boy Advance right."

Do a little Googling. You'll find that AGB was the acronymn for the Game Boy Advance. Clicky.

Re:Better have better 3rd Party Support...

[DiggGraduate]

I feel bad for you game testers. The new controller is going to get your arms tired. Make sure you get some worker compensation insurance.

Re:Better have better 3rd Party Support...

[PhoenixFlare]

Fair enough, though I can't say I remember ever hearing or seeing anyone use AGB in normal use (friends, Slashdot, gaming websites, stores, packaging, Nintendo Powe, etc.) before today.

And two can play at the example game - Nintendo's own website uses the term GBA.

Re:Better have better 3rd Party Support...

[tepples]

Go to warioworld.com (not wario-world.com which is a different site), scroll down, and click "Become a Licensee". Look for the lines that say "terms and conditions".

Re:Better have better 3rd Party Support...

[Anonymous Coward]

Retard, that is marketing name after they already decided what to call it. Yes, we all say GBA now.

AGB was the DEVELOPMENT name, where programmers and testers were involved first. He called it that because he probably spent several years doing so.

You tried to be a smartass and got pwn3d big time.

Re:Better have better 3rd Party Support...

[Ginger Unicorn]

Apparently the movements required by the controllers are very small, rather than frantic arm waving and constantly holding it out at arms length in front of you.

It's not like moving a mouse pointer around a 18" x 12" screen requires you to move the mouse around an 18" x 12" area of the desk. My wrist stays in the same place when i move my mouse the 2.5" it takes to traverse the entire width of my screen. If i had to keep my arm off the desk and pump the mouse backwards and forwards across the desk I'm sure Id get tired too, but as it is you can hold the Revolution controller in a very similar way to a normal controller, i.e. in your lap and just make easy gestures without having to move your entire arm if you dont want to.

The misconception that you have to wave your arms around comes from some videos posted on the net of people doing just that when demoing the device.

Re:Better have better 3rd Party Support...

[__aaclcg7560]

I feel sorry for the testers of Dance Dance Revolution. Although I'm sure they had a few who could get a perfect score like the older game tester in Grandma's Boy. :)

Re:Better have better 3rd Party Support...

[Just Some Guy]

When I was a lead tester at Atari

Your post would be more believable if anyone really thought that Atari had testers.

Re:Better have better 3rd Party Support...

[__aaclcg7560]

The problem has never been with the testers. Management has always been at fault. Bruno the Infogrames CEO tried to build a video game media empire that could take on EA and storm through Hollywood, and largely failed. All the studios that were bought at two to three times their actual value in 1999 and 2000 have been sold off for pennies on the dollar to pay the debt from the spending spree. Atari was doomed when the company headquarters was relocated from California to New York City to be closer to Wall Street. Didn't do any good as the stock tumbled from $10 a share years ago to $0.75 a share today. The decisions to ship titles before they were ready were made to goose the quarterly results that the stock analysts were more concerned about and no one cared about the long term consequences.

Personally, I think the back catalog will be sold off to leave Atari as a shell company to go into bankruptcy. Bruno will be back at square one with Infogrames in France with nothing to show for his media empire.

Re:Better have better 3rd Party Support...

[PhoenixFlare]

"You tried to be a smartass and got pwn3d big time."

Oh noes!!!11 I've been pwn3d!!

So what, I was both right and wrong, and i've admitted as such. Nice attempt at a jab though.

I also agree

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't a lesson to be learned from the gGame Cube. tNintendo has screwed up on 3rd party support from the N64 onward. And besides, 3rd party support isn't something that Nintendo can promise. that's really out of their hands . (that's why it's 3rd party after all).

but all the reasons you listed above are excellent points. I hope nintendo will be able to bring 3rd party developers back into the fold. that 'quality not quantity' is a lame excuse. i want both.

Re:I also agree

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

"I hope nintendo will be able to bring 3rd party developers back into the fold. that 'quality not quantity' is a lame excuse. i want both."

I dunno if I agree with that last bit. I actually got rid of my Playstation when they started flooding the shelves with crappy titles. I was scared for a while that Sony was going to do to the industry what Atari did. Fortunately, that hasn't happened, but man... I was a video game salesman when the PSOne landed. Oh boy. My job was to play the games so I could advise people n whether a game would be interesting to them or not. In the PSOne's case, most times it was "skip it" or "Meh, it's okay, not sure you'd want to spend $50 on it." As I understand it, the PS2 did far better in that department.

I'm really happy with the GC, but I did end up buying a PS2 for a couple of the titles I really wanted. In that respect, yes, I'd like to see more third party support. I just don't want another flood of crap. For me personally, the N64 was a far better investment than the PSOne. I'm basing that on the amount of money I spent vs. the amount of fun I had. I think Nintendo was right that time around. In this case, though, the Rev is distinctive enough that they'd likely do far better if they could get a huge library for it.

Re:I also agree

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not out of their hands at all. The ease of software development, quality/documentation of the SDK, availability of the SDK (as in the summary), and several other factors all have an affect on third party support. IIRC, apparently the N64 had a terrible SDK, and the Gamecube's wasn't terrific and it wasn't particularily well available right off the bat. The Revolution has the advantage that the architecture is similiar to the Gamecube's which should make it easier for developers to get right into programming it, and they're actually sending the SDK out to other non-partner game studios this time.

Re:I also agree

[SetupWeasel]

It is out of their hands in the same sense that you can lead a horse to water, but you can make him drink.

Re:I also agree

[demeteloaf]

I'm not sure why anyone can think that there's such a thing as too many titles for a system. The way I look at, more titles means more chance that one of those titles is going to be something that you really like, and if the other 9 out of 10 are complete crap, don't buy them. Simple as that.

The fact is, since the NES, i have always been a once console person. Up until this generation with the GCN, I have been perfectly content with only having an nes, snes, n64, etc. and just missing all the Sony, Sega, and Microsoft exclusives, because i could always have a good library of fun interesting games for my system.

However I have to say that I finally cracked and bought a PS2. Don't get me wrong, there are some great GCN games out there that i absolutely love, it just really seems that for every great GCN game coming out, there are at least 5 coming out for the PS2, and when I hadn't had a decent game to play in a while, and guitar hero came out, it finally just pushed me over the edge.

As for the article, this isn't a new thing... nintendo promised more third party support on the GCN, and while it definitly seemed to have more than the N64, as i said earlier, compared to the PS2 it's lacking. Honestly, the only way i can think of to really get more third party support is to pick up a much bigger share of the console race, and the way nintendo operates (catering to niche markets, being happy with non-HD, etc.) It just doesn't seem like that's going to happen any time soon.

Re:I also agree

[Shadarr]

I'm the same as you, I got a PS2 back in the summer when I ran out of GC games, and God of War and Romance of the Three Kingdoms X were out for the PS2. For whatever reason, it seemed like nothing good came out last fall. Now with Chibi Robo and Harvest Moon: Magical Melody, the GC drought may be over.

The number of crappy PS2 games never really bothered me, because I don't play crappy games. There are plenty of crappy games on every system, it just means you have to do more than look at the back of the box when deciding what to buy. The only question that really matters is how many good games does a system have? PS2 has a lower percentage of good games than the GC, but it has more good games total.

Re:I also agree

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, that's your opinion.

I've always found that it seems like I'm wading through an ocean of shit to get to the island with a couple of gold pieces on it. The gold pieces are awesome, but god damn that ocean of shit was horrible.

That's my two cents and it's the main reason I don't play video games except Nintendo anymore. Plus I don't have much time anymore which really ties in with the ocean of shit.

Re:I also agree

[Rydia]

Bit of faulty logic- the idea that "more titles = more chances to have a great title" assumes that each title has roughly the same chance of being great, which is far from true.

Re:I also agree

[Anonymous Coward]

They could totally guarantee it. Just need to start paying off third parties like microsoft does.

Re:I also agree

[demeteloaf]

I'm not saying that there is even the same chance of having a great title, i just want more great titles. I would much rather have a system with 100 games and a 5% chance of there being a great game, than a system with 10 games and a 10% chance of being a great game. Sure the system with 100 games will have more crap, but there also will be more great titles for me to play.

Well at least they've learned their lesson

[shoptroll]

... Or will still be learning it.

I will say that after losing a lot of the 3rd party support when the 64 came out they have started making pretty good progress getting most of it back. Although that is sometimes done by using the GBA as the carrot on a stick (Square-Enix anyone?).

Nintendo dominated the later years of the 16-bit generation through a good stable of 3rd party developers, and Sony's success has shown that 3rd party devs really make or break the system.

Like other people have said before, they say this every generation, so I'm skeptical about this, but E3 will hopefully offer up some proof to the validity of this statement. Also, the Revolution does have a lot to offer 3rd party developers: lower budget games (don't need to spend extra time developing HD-res textures), a (hopefully) cheap install price which hopefully results in a large player base, a chance to try something new, online connectivity, backwards compatibility (I wonder if this something indies could make use of (if Nintendo offers up cheaper dev kits for smaller games)) through the virtual console, and an online marketplace.

Re:Well at least they've learned their lesson

[steveo777]

I'd say that Sony just had the proper hardware jump over Nintendo they needed to lull over the 3rd party devs. The SNES, in it's time, was easy to program, and powerful enough to handle new ideas and great graphics. Sony just took the torch from Nintendo and ran with it. CD's were the way to go because they were cheap. I think we'd all agree that cartriges are still the best idea because load times are almost non-existent. We all know Nintendo was banking on that with the N64. Unfortunately, developers didn't agree.

I hope and expect the Rev to have shorter load times than the competition just like with the GCN. Load times are why I never wanted a PS1. My friend was playing Blood Omen and it took about a minute just to access the menus and get back to the game.

If Nintendo could get some good RPGs out of SquEnix, then this will be an excelent time to be a gamer. I always hope for games that entrance me like Illusion of Gaia and Secret of Mana. Games that make me want to play them over and over like Gradius III.

Looking forward to another golden age of gaming.

Developers

[ScaryFroMan]

One clue I'm seeing with this is the staggering amount of developers who say they are excited about developing games for the Rev. I'm seeing a lot more of those than the PS3 or 360 equivalents. I suppose Nintendo did this right to get thier interests piqued.

Re:Developers

[genedefect]

That can be contributed to more than just the developers being "excited" about the Revolution.

One has to take into account that 1,000 development kits may sound like a lot until you put it into perspective.

The PS3 has over 5,000 development kits shipped to date (around 3,000 currently in circulation).

The Xbox360 is sitting somewhere around 30,000 final development kits out there.

So, now the question is, are the developers praising the system because they want to do so, or praising on condition of getting one of the rare development kits that are out there?

They had better deliver on that.

[LordZardoz]

I want the Revolution to succeed. I think that the controller will play a huge part in any success it has, and I am a fan of both the company, and the games they put out.

Having said that, I must say that 3rd party support is where Nintendo appears to do poorly. They really need to get the other publisher onboard with their system, unless they want to end up being reduced to a very niche player. No one doubts Nintendo's ability to make great games, but the simple fact is that they have not been able to hold the attention of the majority of typical gamers. Unless they can convince EA, Capcom, Namco, Activision, Sega, and the other big publishers that they will do well on the Revolution, they will stay away in droves.

END COMMUNICATION

Re:They had better deliver on that.

[Minced]

Well, good news for you then! EA, Capcom, Namco, Activision, Sega, Squenix (Square Enix), Taito, and a bunch of others are all in support of the Revolution. In fact, SEGA is releasing games for the virtual console of the Genesis era. There are a lot of other companies on board as well, for the most comprehensive listing check here: http://www.n-sider.com/articleview.php?articleid=4 97

While it looks somewhat disheartening not to see EVERY developer pledging support most developers don't join in till after they see if it will fly or not, so who is to say that the third party support won't grow. With all the interest in the console I'm sure most companies are on the verge, they just need the financial inscentive.

Re:They had better deliver on that.

[MrCopilot]

They really need to get the other publisher onboard with their system, unless they want to end up being reduced to a very niche player. No one doubts Nintendo's ability to make great games, but the simple fact is that they have not been able to hold the attention of the majority of typical gamers.

What do you call Sonic Gems/Sonic Heroes/Sonic Adventure/Shadow the Hedgehog, First Party?

How about LOTR 1, 2, 3, & the Third Age? Resident Evil? Buffy the Vampire Slayer? Prince of Persia?

I could go on all day. Our GC has 29 titles on the shelf only 6 are First Party Games.(Zelda, Smash Bros, MarioKart, Luigi's Mansion, Mario Sunshine, and Metroid Prime in case you were wondering.)

If the big N is priced right developers will work beg to be in on the rush. The GC only launched with a few 1st party games plus rebel assault. But when they started filling up homes all of a sudden Devs came a' runnin. This time they aren't waiting for launch to see if the big N will fail, they KNOW they won't.

Lets face it the only thing that will kill Nintendo Hardware is Mario/Link/Kirby and the gang on the Xbox360 or PS3, funny I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Please Note I never expected to see Sonic on a Nintendo Console either. Some how I thinks this is different.

Re:They had better deliver on that.

[antime]

But when they started filling up homes all of a sudden Devs came a' runnin.

And pretty soon they were all running in the opposite direction. So far I haven't seen anything that has convinced me the same scenario won't repeat itself.

Re:They had better deliver on that.

[MrCopilot]

And pretty soon they were all running in the opposite direction. So far I haven't seen anything that has convinced me the same scenario won't repeat itself

2005 Nintendo list 86 Games shipped for the Cube.
11 were from Nintendo.

2006 lists 13 games so far 2 from Nintendo.

Overal they list 548 Cube titles.
52 are Nintendo First Party games.

Source http://www.nintendo.com/gamelist?start=21&oord=asc &osort=pub&sort=&cmd=&toggle=true&query=&tf=&cf=&s f=NINTENDO+GAMECUBE&ef=&rf=&pf=&af=&vf=&nf=

Just for a minute forget about the franchise games Mario/Zelda /Kirby
Splinter Cell, Prince of Persia, Sonic, Resident Evil, Madden, Lord of the Rings, Gun, Tony Hawk, DDR, Metal Gear Solid, NEED for Speed, Lego Star Wars

What do you think is missing? I have these games some of them on two or three systems the cube holds its own. GUN is a 360 game for crying out loud. Looks Great on that purple box. Sure ain't no $349 difference in graphics to my peepers.

Re:They had better deliver on that.

[antime]

I have these games some of them on two or three systems the cube holds its own.

That's exactly it, the only games released for the system anymore are multi-platform ports. A system can't live on those alone, especially as differences in hardware capability means the Revolution versions will be scaled-down graphically, perhaps with tacked-on pointing support.

Re:They had better deliver on that.

[MrCopilot]

You can't have it both ways. I mentioned the Ports because they show third party devs everybody knows are not running away.Out of those 500+ games many are GC only.

If you think the graphics are scaled down on the cube you're smokin something good. Resident Evil 4, Gun, Splinter Cell (Dust Motes Yo) look incredible on the cube.

You still didn't mention a game not on the cube from a decent 3rd party. What do I care if you waste 250 more on your console to play the same games I do, and yet not be able to play Metroid/Mario/ZELDA.

I'm sure there are PS2/3 Exclusives, and I know there are going to be 360 exclusives thank you very much Bungie & Rare. I just don't care about those games. Hell I can't even think of one (Nudge, EyeToy, psst.. Halo3) Oh right, I can't think of 4.

Disclaimer: I bought "our" Cube for my 8 yr old daughter. We just about evenly split the library. I have been pleasantly surprised with almost (Curse You Buffy the Vampire) every games presentation. Plus the number of 4 player party games is phenom for the weekend sleepovers..
So maybe my opinions are justifications of my purchase. But I usually don't have to justify 50 bucks for a console, and between $5-$30 for games. (Except F'n Shadow the Hedgehog that cost me $50 last christmas, But she just HAD to have it. Just to find out she hates it because he is constantly saynig Damn every 4 seconds.)

Re:They had better deliver on that.

[antime]

Out of those 500+ games many are GC only.

And tell me, which was the most recently released GC-exclusive third-party game? The lack of exclusives show that developers don't think it's worth the money to write GC-only games, which I wouldn't call good third-party support.

If you think the graphics are scaled down on the cube you're smokin something good.

If you'd read what I actually wrote, you would have noticed I talked about Revolution vs. the Xbox360 and the PS3. Based on currently available information the hardware capabilities of the Revolution are notably less than its competitors.

You still didn't mention a game not on the cube from a decent 3rd party.

Personally I enjoy the Metal Gear series, the Front Mission games, Katamari Damacy is fun, the newest Gradius likewise. Just off the top of my head.

Disclaimer: I bought my PS2 for myself. I also bought my Gamecube for myself, though I haven't bought any new games for it for over a year since there's been no exclusives worth getting (though I'm considering Odama) and the cross-platform games are both cheaper and easier to find for the PS2.

Re:They had better deliver on that.

[MrCopilot]

If you think the graphics are scaled down on the cube you're smokin something good.

If you'd read what I actually wrote, you would have noticed I talked about Revolution vs. the Xbox360 and the PS3. Based on currently available information the hardware capabilities of the Revolution are notably less than its competitors.

Sigh...I read your post... Read the whole thread again.
Your comparisons are based on Hardware Specs. Mine are based on Gameplay & Graphic performance in game. Specifically I cited GUN as a next Gen title, Plays and looks mighty fine on the cube. The Wii will also have increased graphic capability over the cube. But if Gun looks nearly identical on the 360 and the Cube, how can you say the nextgen Wii won't hold up? Makes no sense.

Wii's Controls alone will require a little more thought than the simple port. Look at EA's press releases about Madden and other games they are developing. If devs want a piece of the Wii Market they will have to do more than just release another CrossPlatform Shooter.

Personally I enjoy the Metal Gear series, the Front Mission games, Katamari Damacy is fun, the newest Gradius likewise. Just off the top of my head. Metal Gear Twin Snakes. Great GC title, Katamari not on the cube but DS, Gradius V no luck yet, 2, 3 4 though. Front Mission, Hmmm, mental note. new PS2 rental, haven't seen in installment in years (NES?). As for your GC exclusive Third Party Titles Roadmap complaints, the current Gen ends this year how many third party devs do you expect to be working on last years platform 6 months from launch of next gen? Unless its almost ready to ship, as soon as N announced the release date of the Rev^^^ Wii any good project manager is going to decide which platform he wants to release for (Given the similarities of the two I'd release for both.

How many third party exclusive games are coming out this year for the Xbox. Or the PS2. Or the SNES. You see?

How many third party exclusive games are there really for any system. MS owns all their third parties. Sony has the most I guess.

I don't want to get drawn into "my console is better than your console" cause I have too many, all I'm saying is that your comments seem unfair to the little purple box.

Especially this one

and the cross-platform games are both cheaper and easier to find for the PS2.

Great places around here, but I do notice the cube section is a little smaller, Likely because people hold on to their N games longer, Mario is always a premium even used. Tons of used Madden/NHL/NBA/ Games all 5 bucks (Overpriced in my book). BlockBuster is another good source. Same game on PS2 is usually 10-20 bucks higher at all the places I go New or Used.

That's really my point, I find the GC a better value. Same Games + Nintendo Characters. Cheaper System, Cheaper Games, Cheaper Accessories, = Larger Library = Better Value for me and mine.

YMMV. Interesting conversation, Viva the Wii, hmm better keep working on it.

Re:They had better deliver on that.

[antime]

Specifically I cited GUN as a next Gen title, Plays and looks mighty fine on the cube. The Wii will also have increased graphic capability over the cube. But if Gun looks nearly identical on the 360 and the Cube, how can you say the nextgen Wii won't hold up?

Just because it's been released on the Xbox360 (as well as the Xbox, PS2 and GC) doesn't make Gun a next-gen title. Look two years or so down the line when games that actually makes use of the hardware appears.

Look at EA's press releases about Madden and other games they are developing.

There's always lots of press releases. I'll wait to see the games released, personally. (However it should be noted that EA have probably been responsible for the majority of the new GC releases for a while now, just a shame they mostly release garbage.)

As for your GC exclusive Third Party Titles Roadmap complaints, the current Gen ends this year how many third party devs do you expect to be working on last years platform 6 months from launch of next gen?

They seem to manage to do that quite well on other platforms. And look back over the past two years and compare the release lists for all three consoles, surely you're not suggesting they've all been preparing for Wii since 2004?

How many third party exclusive games are coming out this year for the Xbox. Or the PS2.

Probably not that many for the Xbox, but I wouldn't be surprised if the PS2 will be alive well after the release of the PS3. The system has already had more exclusives this year than the Cube had all last year, and the Cube has also been getting less and less of the big-name ports (not even an Outrun 2006 port, even though it would have fit the machine quite well!)

I don't want to get drawn into "my console is better than your console"

So don't turn it into one. Nintendo fans seem to have some sort of brain damage that makes them think anyone that offers any criticism towards Nintendo must necessarily be a supporter of some other console.

Great places around here, but I do notice the cube section is a little smaller

Around here, the GC section mostly consists of EA crossplatform dross, if you want interesting games you have to look elsewhere. And regarding prices, when Iwata whines about expensive games I'd like to ask him explain why I should buy Viewtiful Joe 2 for 63 euros for the Gamecube instead of for 37 euros for the PS2. GC games have consistently been the most expensive ones and the prices stay high no matter how old the games are.

Re:They had better deliver on that.

[MrCopilot]

Around here, the GC section mostly consists of EA crossplatform dross, if you want interesting games you have to look elsewhere. And regarding prices, when Iwata whines about expensive games I'd like to ask him explain why I should buy Viewtiful Joe 2 for 63 euros for the Gamecube instead of for 37 euros for the PS2. GC games have consistently been the most expensive ones and the prices stay high no matter how old the games are. Just the opposite here.

Wow!

[TimAbdulla]

Now we get to see Mario done by multipe studios! Go Nintendo!

Re:Wow!

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

"Now we get to see Mario done by multipe studios! Go Nintendo!"

It'd be a nice break from FPS shooters, racing sims, and fighting games.

Re:Wow!

[Anonymous Coward]

Come now, they all feature different lead characters, therefore Generic FPS #1 must be different from Generic FPS #2. Just like how Generic Racer #1 calls its line of fictional automobiles based on real ones by a different set of names than Generic Racer #2.

Or didn't you know: it's got nothing to do with gameplay, but everything to do with what the names of the characters are.

Market Share

[richman555]

I think that market share will bring more 3rd party support. Why do all 3rd parties support PS2 right now? - Because you cannot ignore the amount of games you can sell, and there are many more PS2 units in peoples homes. I think the Revolution, with is lower cost, its enticing controller, and online retro gaming, cheaper dev kits and development costs, all play a part in making 3rd parties interested. Of course, if Nintendo hits a home run with Revolution, and it becomes very popular, 3rd parties will jump onboard very quickly.

Of course, they would say that.

[Goldrush]

Was there ever a game console that claimed otherwise?

Re:Of course, they would say that.

[oahazmatt]

Was there ever a game console that claimed otherwise?

I doubt there are many that publicly said they hadn't had the third-party support and cited it as a problem with their previous console.

Re:Of course, they would say that.

[LordVader717]

Not exactly, but I remember themselves saying that the attitude at Nintendo at the time of the N64, was kind of "make a good system with good games, and the third-parties will come along by themselves".

It didn't happen

Excellent!

[kyle (in stereo)]

Excellent! Excellent!

It's great to hear Nintendo acknowledge the fact that they need third party support.

One of the more dastardly aspects of it is that given the markets current moving towards non exclusive content and the fact that AAA titles on the Revolution will practically demand use of the Revmote, this means there is a chance for even more Revolution exclusive, console selling, titles.

Big if, but this could bring N back into the market.

Something to think about.

Re:Excellent!

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you mean by "bring N back into the market"?
Oh, wait. The URL in your sig says it all. Yes, maybe nintendo will do weeaboo jrpg's for animu fags like you again.

But for the true gamers, the people who do not pretend "OMG SAVE THE WORLD I'M SO EMO I SHIT RAZORBLADES" storylines are "deep" and "reflections on modern society", big N never was away. Only the drooling hordes of people who called mario "kiddy" while they were playing kingdom fucking hearts would think so.

I'm sick and tired of this mass mentality jrpg fags keep droning on, but I know a few of them will have mod points.

ANONYMOUS DOES NOT FORGIVE

Ummmm.. Multiple studios have done mario

[technoextreme]

Now we get to see Mario done by multipe studios! Go Nintendo!

Obviously, you don't know Mario very well. Let's count the number of second pary developers that have used Mario: AlphaDream-Mario RPGs for GBA and DS Fuse Games-Mario Pinball/Metroid Pinball (Not entirely sure if it is a second party developer) Square Enix-Mario 3 on 3???? (More amazed that the makers of Final Fantasy is doing a basketball game) Next Level Games Inc.-Mario Strikers EA Sports- SSX Tricky in which Mario makes a cameo You know whats really stupid. Halfway through typing this and I freaking realize that you knew this all the long and that's why you were modded funny.

Re:Ummmm.. Multiple studios have done mario

[shoptroll]

I'm willing to take a safe bet and say that Mario 3 on 3 will have some sort of RPG element to the single player game. All the previous Mario sports games on the GBA have had RPG elements incorporated into them. I doubt this will be any different.

Was there ever a flight sim for Palm?

[tepples]

At least until the PSP came out, if you wanted to make a portable game, Nintendo was your only choice.

Not even Palm, which had "touch" gaming years before the DS?

Re:Was there ever a flight sim for Palm?

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

"Not even Palm, which had "touch" gaming years before the DS?"

Are you serious?

Re:Was there ever a flight sim for Palm?

[tepples]

Yes, I am serious. Take out the exclusive Nintendo characters, and touch based games such as WarioWare: Touched! or Kirby: Canvas Curse could have been done just as well on a Palm or Pocket PC device. "Rub it!"

Re:Was there ever a flight sim for Palm?

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

"Yes, I am serious. Take out the exclusive Nintendo characters, and touch based games such as WarioWare: Touched! or Kirby: Canvas Curse could have been done just as well on a Palm or Pocket PC device. "Rub it!"

Erm. Okay. So is your point that the Palm Pilot had a touch screen, or that developers could have made games for it instead of Nintendo?

Re:Was there ever a flight sim for Palm?

[tepples]

So is your point that the Palm Pilot had a touch screen, or that developers could have made games for it instead of Nintendo?

The latter. Was there a specific reason why gaming on Palm OS never really took off?

Re:Was there ever a flight sim for Palm?

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

"The latter. Was there a specific reason why gaming on Palm OS never really took off?"

There were a few reasons. Here's a short list:
- These were not game machines. No standard screen, controls, sound, or even processor.
- Market was all wrong. The cheap palms were no good for gaming and $400 was too much for something relatively decent.
- No graphics related hardware. No sprites, etc. The 64mhz DS graphically out-performs a 200mhz iPaq.

It's also worth mentioning that a touch screen does not a DS make. It's the sum of its compenents that make the DS souch a great machine. Even with 802.11, a Palm Pilot/PocketPC would not be a perfect alternative to the DS.

Re:Was there ever a flight sim for Palm?

[tepples]

So if the DS is closed, and the PSP is closed, and North American smartphones are often closed (many carriers let their customers run only signed midlets), which handheld system should a startup game development company target?

Re:Was there ever a flight sim for Palm?

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

"So if the DS is closed, and the PSP is closed, and North American smartphones are often closed (many carriers let their customers run only signed midlets), which handheld system should a startup game development company target?"

If a company wants to make games, sign the license deal with the PSP, DS, or GBA.

Re:Was there ever a flight sim for Palm?

[metamatic]

You could consider the GP2X.

If the game's good enough, it'll sell the system.

Re:Was there ever a flight sim for Palm?

[tepples]

How does a startup become large enough that Sony, Nintendo, or Nintendo will consider entering into a licensing deal? Should a team of relatively inexperienced developers try to start their own company, or do they instead have to abandon family and move to Greater Seattle?

Re:Was there ever a flight sim for Palm?

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

"How does a startup become large enough that Sony, Nintendo, or Nintendo will consider entering into a licensing deal? Should a team of relatively inexperienced developers try to start their own company, or do they instead have to abandon family and move to Greater Seattle?"

Venture capital. If they have a good idea, they'll be invested in. How do you think game companies get started in the first place? Also, how'd we wind up at the bottom of the developer's pool? Hehehe.

Atlantis Game Boy

[tepples]

During the development of Game Boy Advance, it was called "Atlantis". AGB stands for Atlantis Game Boy, and is used by companies within the Nintendo circle of trust. If you have any GBA Game Paks, look closely on the label to see "AGB". Here are some other codename-based alphanumeric codes that you might find on Nintendo game media:

• Game Boy was DMG (Dot Matrix Game)
• Nintendo 64 was NUS (Nintendo Ultra Sixty-four)
• GameCube is DOL (Dolphin)
• Nintendo DS is NTR (Nitro)

FPS, racing, and fighting

[tepples]

It'd be a nice break from FPS shooters, racing sims, and fighting games.

Metroid Prime Hunters, Mario Kart DS, and Super Smash Bros. Melee weren't that bad.

Re:FPS, racing, and fighting

[Anonymous Coward]

That sentence angers me in ways you cannot understand.

Re:FPS, racing, and fighting

[lidocaineus]

What the heck? You take something that's BARELY an FPS, NOT a driving sim, and an original take on the tired fighting genre and calling it... unoriginal? Are you retarded?

Re:FPS, racing, and fighting

[tepples]

</sarcasm>

The point is that genre doesn't matter; fun does. Nintendo takes tired genres and makes/keeps them fun.

Third party support is overblown

[Rosebud128]

Third party support really won't make or break the Revolution. It will be the first party support.

For the first couple of years, the Famicom had no third party support. Yet, it beat its challengers such as the Atari 2600 (or whatever they called it in Japan). When the NES emerged in America, it was the quality of first party titles that moved systems. People bought the NES because of Super Mario Brothers and Zelda. Third party support was icing on the cake.

Look at the Super Nintendo. The quality of first party (and second party) games moved systems. People wanted Super Mario World. Later, they wanted Super Mario Kart, Donkey Kong Country, and Super Mario All-Stars (the best selling SNES games).

Look at the N64. Again, the quality of first party titles was the primary driver of system sales. Super Mario 64, Zelda: Ocarina of Time, and Super Mario Kart 64 were the best selling N64 games.

Now look at the Gamecube. The quality of first party titles were still good but disapointing to what Nintendo delivers. Honestly, would anyone say Super Mario Sunshine, Zelda: Windwaker, Mario Kart: Double Dash were the best entries in the franchise? Most fans had problems with them in one way or another. And while Metroid Prime was nice, it also put off many traditional Metroid fans. The problem with the Gamecube was really with the Nintendo made games. Second party games became a joke (as Rare became a joke).

The DS had this initial problem. At launch, the 'best' DS game was Super Mario 64 DS... a port! Warioware Touched was a disapointment to warioware fans, Polarium was a joke, but at least Yoshi's Touch and Go was decent. The real change occurred with the DS not when great third party titles came out like Castlevania: DS or Meteos, but with First and Second Party Nintendo games like Kirby: CC, Advanced Wars: DS, and the killer-app of Mario Kart DS. Add in Nintendogs if you'd like. The DS is moving because Nintendo is focusing hard on the quality of their software. Tetris DS is amazing. Metroid Prime Hunters is impressive. Brain Age is... different. I have no doubt that New Super Mario Brothers will be a killer app as Mario Kart DS was.

Keep in mind that the same situation applied for Sega. Sega began to move consoles only when it made games like Sonic.

Third party support is important but nowhere near as important as first party support. Nintendo is the #2 game publisher for good reason.

All this talk about third parties is really only because Sony and Microsoft are in the market. Do you ever hear talk about first parties? No! Because Sony and Microsoft cannot match the sheer quality and diversity of first party Nintendo games. This is why their marketing will say, "Only Nintendo games sell very well on Nintendo consoles," without mentioning the fact that this has been the case ever since the NES.

Only a few third party games ever seem to move consoles. Losing Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest hurt Nintendo especially in Japan. Not having Grand Theft Auto 3 hurt Nintendo in the West and helped give it the reputation of 'kiddie console' (though Nintendo didn't help with its purple toy look).

Through console history, the primary system sellers have almost always been Nintendo's first party games. This is why the DS is outselling the PSP even with western third party support for the DS being very low yet very high for the PSP. This is why when Peter Mooer said that if he could take any game franchise from any other system, his answer was solid: "Mario. I want Mario." Peter Moore knows that Mario sells. Even the disapointing Super Mario Sunshine sold as much as Halo did. Moore knows what moves units which is why he would pick up Mario if he ever could.

Re:Third party support is overblown

[metamatic]

Because Sony and Microsoft cannot match the sheer quality and diversity of first party Nintendo games.

That's where I realized you'd left reality and gone into total fanboy land.

WipeOut, EyeToy, The Getaway (SCEE); Gran Turismo 4, Siphon Filter, Twisted Metal (SCEA), and you might want to look up what SCEI and SCEJ have produced.

I have a GameCube as well as a PS2, and I just wish there were as many games I want to play on the GameCube.

Re:Third party support is overblown

[some guy on slashdot]

There's one way to explain why the NES didn't have 3rd party support in the beginning; because in the beginning, it wasn't a "console" as we know it. It was a $200 toy made by a very nimble and clever toy company. Donkey Kong, Super Mario Bros. and Zelda were all designed by a toy maker. The idea of a console as media conduit for 3rd party content makers didn't catch up to the NES for quite some time.

This probably explains why Nintendo kept its 3rd party releases restricted to Nintendo-approved developers as well.

In the end, even the GameCube was a toy; almost every huge game for the system was an accessory to that toy made by the toy manufacturer. Call me crazy, but I think this is probably why Nintendo always profits and Sony/Microsoft always run a deficit on their systems. Microsoft and Sony are making the hardware a tool for developers to get their games out; they rely on the creativity and ingenuity of those developers to drive sales of the system, and sales of each others' games. But Nintendo is relying on their own creativity because they don't just think of their product as a tool; they think of it as a toy, and so they see it as their responsibility to make their toy fun and desirable. Sony doesn't, unless you count making exclusive deals with RPG makers. Microsoft doesn't, unless you count buying up successful game companies and forcing them to make reptitive sequels.

Re:Third party support is overblown

[Rosebud128]

Nope. This is reality. All those you cited, except perhaps the Eyetoy, only target a narrow demographic. None of them have the wide appeal of the Nintendo titles.

What will determine the console war is not what *YOU* think the quality of software is. Sony's software is good and fine but there is a strict limitation to it. What will determine the console war is who taps into the most demographics.

The reason why the DS outsold the PSP was because the DS had software that appealed to more demographics (from Nintendogs for females to Brain Age for old adults). Kutaragi has admitted that the PSP has a 96% male demographic.

Women are not going to be buying Twisted Metal. Old adults are not going to be buying Gran Turismo. But they will pick up Mario Kart when they pick up their Nintendogs and Brain Training.

This is the Blue Ocean Strategy.

Re:Third party support is overblown

[Rosebud128]

There's one way to explain why the NES didn't have 3rd party support in the beginning; because in the beginning, it wasn't a "console" as we know it. It was a $200 toy made by a very nimble and clever toy company. Donkey Kong, Super Mario Bros. and Zelda were all designed by a toy maker. The idea of a console as media conduit for 3rd party content makers didn't catch up to the NES for quite some time.

The Japanese were linking their Famicoms up to satellites, to disk systems, and even trading stock on it. The idea of a multimedia console is not new and has been tried even before the Famicom (those consoles that tried to use the tape decks as well, haha). You do realize that Famicom meant 'Family Computer' right?

Nintendo has been a games maker, not a toy maker. Before the Famicon, Nintendo was one of the top arcade game makers (Donkey Kong, Donkey Kong Jr.) and provided the killer app for the Colecovision (second in marketshare to the Atari 2600 thanks partly due to the Donkey Kong port). And before the Famicom, Nintendo had been making electronics including the Game and Watch (which has been reincarnated into the DS).

Nintendo spend R&D money to develop and ship out their console. It was their market. Back then, Nintendo had every right to define what rules any third party would play. Sega would do the same.

Third party content for consoles was not new. Nintendo was the third party content for the Colecovision and (if I recall correctly) PCs at the time. Third parties had a renaissance with Electronic Arts back in the early eighties. Third parties were nothing new.

If the NES was a 'toy', then your TV could also be labeled a 'toy'. You guys have to remember your history. Pong and Atari 2600 sold mostly to adults at first. Hell, the very first versions of Pong and Donkey Kong were market tested in bars! Don't give me this 'toy' garbage. These systems had millions of dollars invested in them and they were capable of generating billions of dollars of revenue. These game consoles are one of the fastest and most profit grossing business ever made. This is why it is so competitive. At the time, Atari was the fastest growing company ever in American history (if the Discovery Channel is accurate with their documentary).

In the end, even the GameCube was a toy; almost every huge game for the system was an accessory to that toy made by the toy manufacturer. Call me crazy, but I think this is probably why Nintendo always profits and Sony/Microsoft always run a deficit on their systems. Microsoft and Sony are making the hardware a tool for developers to get their games out; they rely on the creativity and ingenuity of those developers to drive sales of the system, and sales of each others' games. But Nintendo is relying on their own creativity because they don't just think of their product as a tool; they think of it as a toy, and so they see it as their responsibility to make their toy fun and desirable. Sony doesn't, unless you count making exclusive deals with RPG makers. Microsoft doesn't, unless you count buying up successful game companies and forcing them to make reptitive sequels.

Is this an attempt at trolling? You seriously don't believe this, do you?

Nintendo, Atari, and Sega are/were primarily SOFTWARE companies. They designed the hardware to match the software. Nintendo is only in the console business to have absolute control over the hardware the software appears on (*points to what happened to how Coleco threw Nintendo to the wolves back in the early 80s*). You could say that Miyamoto is the only game designer left on Earth now who can design the hardware to service his software.

Sony and Microsoft are in the hardware business of consoles (for Microsoft, perhaps more of the OSes of the consoles like Marketplace and Xbox Live). Sony does not design its hardware around its software which is its huge chief disadvantage (as we are fast seeing with the PSP and probably the PS3). If you've noticed, the Sony console and controller are exactly t

Re:Third party support is overblown

[MMaestro]

Wow, have you looked up game sales lately?

WipeOut had its origins as a first-gen PS1 game and it STILL hasn't really broken out of niche status.
EyeToy is accepted to be nothing more than a gimmick even by professional reviewers due to the sheer lack of support.
The Getaway and Gran Turismo 4 are both niche games (yes they had big sales but they didn't move systems, and overall they're considered to be stagnant at this point.)
Syphon Filter is a cheap Metal Gear Solid knock-off that never ventured far from its copycat roots (for the fourth game in the series and its first game on the PS2 they added... FORCED multiplayer. The game is 100% impossible to beat 'completely' without multiplayer.)
Twisted Metal flat-out never achieved mainstream success. Its a niche game, the characters are unoriginal (a killer clown? yeah, real original there) and the gameplay has been done better by competitors.

Re:Third party support is overblown

[wheany]

Oh come on, Gran Turismo 3 has sold almost 14.5 million copies worldwide and GT4 has sold more than 6 million copies. In what world are those niche games?

http://www.gamersmark.com/news/2005/08/1/6543

Re:Third party support is overblown

[Manmademan]

Third party support is *Essential* for console success. No matter how high the quality of Nintendo's titles may be, they can only produce so many per year before quality suffers as a result. Nintendo's top franchises are great, but not substantially better than best that SCEA, Capcom, Namco, Square Enix, EA, Konami, etc can produce.

A previous poster claimed that nintendo's first party titles have "the widest appeal" but that's simply not true. If you don't like cutesy platform games, you're out of luck. For example: what's the Nintendo first party equivalent to Gran Turismo? Shadow of the Colossus? Soul Calibur? Guitar Hero? God of War? Metal Gear Solid 3? Final Fantasy X? Grand Theft Auto? Indigo Prophecy? Guilty Gear XX? Fight Night? Silent Hill? (no, the RE series is NOT like Silent Hill, and hasn't been for some time.) All of these games (except perhaps indigo) sold extremely well so there's clearly an audience nintendo is neglecting.

Having solid, quality 3rd party developers on board means that you don't have to spend time watering down your titles to appeal to "everyone." Looking at the PS2, No matter what your taste in games is there's a very high chance you can find a title you like. Are there bad titles? sure. But a quick trip to gamerankings or similar can easily steer you away from the ones not worth your time.

Re:Third party support is overblown

[oneils]

I don't know about you, but I bought my N64 for golden eye. Bought a PS2 because of games like GTA and passed on the cube. Third party support does make a difference. But, yes, you have a great point. Nintendo does fairly well for itself based on its own library.

Re:Third party support is overblown

[wheany]

You sound like you think that I disagree with you. I don't.

Re:Third party support is overblown

[LoverOfJoy]

I think you're getting overly defensive about the term 'toy' as if it were an expletive. It's something to play with and have fun with. I don't think the gp was making some troll comment about it being 'kiddie'. As you have said, even adults like these toys (and they were aimed at them).

Sure, all three systems are toys or game systems or whatever you want to call them. I believe the gp was mostly referring to philosophy and it seems you agree. Nintendo keeps how they will use the system in mind. As you said, "They designed the hardware to match the software." I think that's what the gp was talking about. Ultimately, they are looking at the end goal, to make the game player have fun. Sony and Microsoft are looking at things more from the hardware side....making it a tool for other developers.

Re:Third party support is overblown

[metamatic]

Whether Nintendo can target a wider demographic with a console remains to be seen. They've clearly failed with the GameCube, and even if they've arguably managed with their handhelds, that doesn't necessarily mean they'll succeed with a console.

And all of that is beside the point. I was replying to someone who claimed that Sony couldn't make good first party software. I simply provided counterexamples.

Re:Third party support is overblown

[metamatic]

Oh, so you want to talk about originality?

Wind Waker. Ha! Basically the same game as Ocarina of Time on the 64, with slightly better graphics and new locations, and a rather tedious sailing mechanic. (I say that because I played them back to back, and was very disappointed by Wind Waker.)

Metroid Prime. Ooh, a first-person shooter!

Resident Evil 4. Ooh, survival horror. Where have I seen that before?

I won't even start on Mario.

Sure, the GameCube has a few truly original games, like Pikmin. But the PS2 has plenty of truly original games too, and you're blinded by fanboyishness if you can't see it.

Re:Third party support is overblown

[justchris]

Wind Waker I'll give you, because you're right, it wasn't terribly original compared to Ocarina of time.

Metroid Prime is not a first person shooter, it's a first person adventure. Strickly speaking, it has more in commonw with first person pc rpgs like Might & Magic than it does with FPS like Halo or Syphon Filter. Also, it's a dramatic shift going from Super Metroid to Metroid Prime.

Resident Evil 4 is a 3rd party game, and therefore not part of this conversation.

And yes, let's talk about Mario. First appeared in Donkey Kong. Next in Mario Bros. Next in Super Mario Bros. See any similarity in those games yet? Let's go on. Next you have Super Mario Bros. 2 (originally Doki Doki Panic), then Super Mario Bros. 3, which has the same basic gameplay as Super Mario Bros., but essentially tripled the contenct by changing how stages are organized, giving more freedom to choose a path, more powerups, and more distinct worlds. It also added several new mechanics.

Moving on, you have Super Mario World, which is essentially Super Mario Bros. 3 with Yoshi added, and improvements to make use of the new technology in the SNES.

Then Mario 64 which was one of the first fully 3d platflormers and completely altered and updated the gameply for 3 dimensional play. It added a host of new mechanics, completely altered the world structure, introduced new characters and new abilities.

And then you had Mario Sunshine, which essentially did for Mario 64 what SMB 3 did for the original SMB, only not as well, obviously.

Next you have Super Smash Bros., Mario Kart and Mario Sports Titles (none of which have any bearing on any of the previous games so no qualms with originality there). Now, admittedly, each iteration of these games is virtually identical in gameplay, just with added features or mechanics, but they've all been released for different systems. All that means is that, if you want to play Mario Kart, and you have a DS but not a n64 or GCN, you don't have to go out and buy a new system, you just get the game for the system you already have. Therefore, it's allowable.

And, of course, there was Super Mario RPG, and Paper Mario, neither of which were remotely like each other, or anything else released in the Mario universe (at least until Mario & Luigi were released for the GBA & DS respectively, and those two games were still significantly different).

The only place where you really have an argument for a lack of originality is with the constant releases of Mario Party (which is essentially the same basic game, except each iteration has different mini-games).

Try not to mistake profitability for a lack of originality. Nintendo continues to use Mario because he is worth great heaping wads of money. They always try to do something new and original with him, from adding completely new, sometimes unheard of, mechanics, to switching genre's completely. It takes just as much originality to create a new game type as it does to create a new character model. Putting a known profitable character/world into a totally new game isn't unoriginal, it's just good business. As far as original games on the PS2, yes, it does have a lot of really, really great original titles, and the GC is actually quite lacking in original titles. But, to be fair, few of the original titles on the PS2 were developed in house by Sony. And the GC, in every possible manner, has been the least original console Nintendo has ever created.

Re:Third party support is overblown

[justchris]

Actually, Nintendo's titles do target a wider demographic than any of those titles you mentioned. Each of those titles targets a specific demographic, whereas Nintendo tends to release titles that are loved equally by people in very distinctly different demographics. Take Brain Training, for instance. Though it is primarily targetted at middle aged and older men and women, it is played and enjoyed by people of both genders from the ages of about 13 to 72. That's a pretty wide demographic for a single game.

Not that I disagree with you on Nintendo needing 3rd parties. Just because Nintendo hasn't produced games that equate to the ones you mentioned doesn't mean they can't. Sometimes it means they just don't want to. But if Nintendo doesn't want to do it, they need someone who does want to make those games, to make them for a Nintendo system, in order to sell the system to the type of people who enjoy those games.

Also, as you said, there is a physical limit to how many games Nintendo can actually produce. 3rd parties are needed to take up the slack when Nintendo has nothing available for sale.

Re:Third party support is overblown

[Rosebud128]

Whether Nintendo can target a wider demographic with a console remains to be seen. They've clearly failed with the GameCube, and even if they've arguably managed with their handhelds, that doesn't necessarily mean they'll succeed with a console.

I love the double standards of the games industry. This is the typical 'Nintendo's success in portables doesn't translate to console success.' (without factoring in the only real competition Nintendo portable has had was Sega's Game Gear decades ago).

The double standard is that people do not apply this to Sony. I was told that Sony's success in the console market translated to success in the portable market, that the PSP would destroy the DS. The analysts were right, the PSP SHOULD have won. Sony is the master of portable consumer electronics. The PSP didn't win because the DS altered the portable gaming market by drawing in lapsed gamers and non-gamers. This is why the DS skyrocketed to success in Japan (whose games market was in decline) and is selling strongly in Europe and America.

Another fun 'double standard' is that both the Gamecube and Xbox have sold around 20 million units. Yet, somehow the Gamecube is "clearly a failure" while the Xbox is "a huge roaring success". I wish someone would explain that to me.

Yamauchi has said that the winner of the portable war will be the victor of the console war. I tend to put more stock in Yamauchi's business analysis than the random Slashdot poster.

And all of that is beside the point. I was replying to someone who claimed that Sony couldn't make good first party software. I simply provided counterexamples.

No, you didn't understand the original issue. Whether or not *you* think the games are great doesn't matter. What matters is if the games MOVE SYSTEMS. And to move the system is to put out software that appeals to a wider demographic. While Halo has been very good for Microsoft, for example, they know they have to put out software that can appeal to beyond the usual 'halo demographic' which is why Peter Moore said Rare made 'Viva Pinanta' game.

Nintendo games have always moved their consoles. Sony games have not.

Let me put it to you this way: Nintendo can survive solely on its first party games. Sony cannot. Look at the PSP! Sony is the vulnerable one here.

BTW, my favorite double standard is this:

When the Virtual Console was announced, everyone said, "But what about third party support?"

When Sony announced PS1 download service for PSP and PS1/PS2 download service for PS3, everyone's reaction was: "OMG, I cannot wait to download Final Fantasy Tactics and Symphony of the Night." Third parties are always automatically assumed. With such high development costs and people buying the system for non-game purposes (like movies), great third party output for Nintendo's competitors cannot be assumed. Again, look what happened to the PSP with its huge development costs and overall low game sales.

Look at the PS2 and Gamecube system sales versus software sales. Game sales were very high on the Gamecube. This is a reason why companies like Sega are staying close to Nintendo as all their games are selling the strongest on the Gamecube. The popular perceptions of third parties and Nintendo really don't have much founding in fact.

Re:Third party support is overblown

[Rosebud128]

The reason why I responded how I did was that the poster sincerely believed it was 'fact' that one console was a toy (while the others were not). This 'fact' is actually marketing from Sony and Microsoft.

Whether one loves whichever console company isn't the matter. But too many people believe swallow the 'marketing' as fact in this hype-filled industry. (Nintendo has its 'marketing' as well.)

Re:Third party support is overblown

[Rosebud128]

I won't even start on Mario.

What many people don't realize is that Super Mario Brothers was not an 'original' game. It was a spin-off from Mario Brothers. And Mario Brothers was a spin-off from the Donkey Kong games.

Nintendo has been spinning off Mario for decades. Sometimes, the spin-off gives rise to a new independent franchise (Super Mario Brothers, Super Mario Kart, and Smash Brothers are good examples) while other spin-offs do not work as well (Dr. Mario, the various Mario sports games, and so on).

Sure, the GameCube has a few truly original games, like Pikmin. But the PS2 has plenty of truly original games too, and you're blinded by fanboyishness if you can't see it.

I've noticed that those who accuse others of fanboyishness are those who are most afflicted by it.

Re:Third party support is overblown

[Rosebud128]

Third party support is *Essential* for console success.

I don't disagree with this. I am saying it is being way overblown.

The problem is always presented as 'an issue for Nintendo's consoles,' when, in reality, it is an issue for ALL consoles.

No matter how high the quality of Nintendo's titles may be, they can only produce so many per year before quality suffers as a result. Nintendo's top franchises are great, but not substantially better than best that SCEA, Capcom, Namco, Square Enix, EA, Konami, etc can produce.

Sales numbers point out a different story. While Square Enix games, for example, have been extremely popular in Japan (and were even bundled with the original Famicom), there are not as critical because they target the same typical market. Hollywood is in trouble because they kept making movies that hammered the same audience and demographic again and again. Video games are beginning to face that problem now.

Animal Crossing WW has outsold Final Fantasy 12 in Japan. Nintendogs has outsold practically any game not called 'Grand Theft Auto' in the past few years.

One reason why third parties are overblown is because they keep targeting the same traditional hardcore market. In Japan, the market has been slowly shrinking. It is beginning to stagnate in America. Unless games are made to cater beyond the usual nerd gamer (marketing has labeled these individuals as 'hardcore' players), the market will never grow.

A previous poster claimed that nintendo's first party titles have "the widest appeal" but that's simply not true. If you don't like cutesy platform games, you're out of luck.

I am not basing this as my opinion, but as a reflection from looking at the sales numbers. Nintendo's games sell well to all demographics and genders. There are few other game companies that can pull that off.

For example: what's the Nintendo first party equivalent to Gran Turismo? Shadow of the Colossus? Soul Calibur? Guitar Hero? God of War? Metal Gear Solid 3? Final Fantasy X? Grand Theft Auto? Indigo Prophecy? Guilty Gear XX? Fight Night? Silent Hill? (no, the RE series is NOT like Silent Hill, and hasn't been for some time.) All of these games (except perhaps indigo) sold extremely well so there's clearly an audience nintendo is neglecting.

You need to ask yourself: "What are the demographics of the buyers of those games?" They are all the same exact demographic: young males. It is an important demographic to have, but you need more.

As I said earlier, Kutaragi pointed out the big problem with the PSP is that the demographics of the PSP are 96% young male.

Having solid, quality 3rd party developers on board means that you don't have to spend time watering down your titles to appeal to "everyone."

A game that appeals to everyone is considered to you to be 'watered down'? How is a game better when it is locked within only a narrow demographic? It certainly won't sell better.

Looking at the PS2, No matter what your taste in games is there's a very high chance you can find a title you like. Are there bad titles? sure. But a quick trip to gamerankings or similar can easily steer you away from the ones not worth your time.

You're confusing having a vast library of games to having good third party support. They are not the same.

Let me use the PSP for example. It has excellent third party support. But game development is so expensive and time consuming that less games appear on the system. Contrast this to the DS where games such as Brain Trainer can be made in three months.

My point is gaining third party support is no guarentee of building a vast library of games. Development costs, the time it takes to produce a game, and other features (such as tying each game into a behemoth online service) can hamper the goal of creating a vast library.

Third party support is important but way overblown. The Revolution will soar or die depending on first party support especially around launch.

Re:Third party support is overblown

[Rosebud128]

It is interesting that you mentioned Gran Turismo 3 and not Gran Turismo 4.

While Gran Turismo 3 sold around 14 million, Gran Turismo 4 sold around 6.3 million. This is more than a 50% decline.

If Grand Theft Auto is such a system seller, why didn't it move PSPs?

Think of it this way. The movie Titanic was loved by females. But if movie studios kept making chick flick type movies, its sales would decline due to boredom and they would lose the other demographics. This is exactly occuring to the video game market now.

Whichever console sells to the most demographics will sell the most systems this generation. Both Nintendo and Peter Moore are on record for saying this. Sony is on record for pointing out that is the problem with the PSP.

Re:Third party support is overblown

[metamatic]

I was told that Sony's success in the console market translated to success in the portable market, that the PSP would destroy the DS.

I never beleived that either. Looking at Nintendo's software lineup for the GBA, it's pretty clear that either they're going after entirely the wrong demographic, or the handheld software market is dominated by kids. Sure, they're trying to appeal to adult gamers as well with the DS, but look at all those racks of Pokemon games in the GBA section.

In contrast, Sony tried to repeat what they did with the PS1: focus on 20s and 30s adults who had grown up with video games. As yet, it doesn't seem to have worked. One factor maybe working against them is the back-compatibility issue; just as the PS2 was helped by being able to run PS1 software, so the DS is helped by being able to run GBA software.

No, you didn't understand the original issue. Whether or not *you* think the games are great doesn't matter. What matters is if the games MOVE SYSTEMS.

That's exactly what I said. Go back and look at the first thing you quoted. The question is whether Nintendo can produce games that sell consoles. They didn't succeed well enough with the GameCube. I bought one as a second console, for things like Metroid Prime, Pikmin and the Zelda games; but not enough other people found the software lineup compelling. In contrast, Sony had GTA3, Gran Turismo, Metal Gear Solid, Final Fantasy, and so on, all selling consoles by the boatload.

Nintendo games have always moved their consoles. Sony games have not.

I bought my PS1 to play Colony Wars and WipeOut. They were system movers for me. I know a gearhead who bought the PS2 for Gran Turismo; and if you don't think GTA sold consoles, well...

Look at the PS2 and Gamecube system sales versus software sales. Game sales were very high on the Gamecube. This is a reason why companies like Sega are staying close to Nintendo as all their games are selling the strongest on the Gamecube.

Sega. Well, I only have 1 Sega game, and that's Rez, which was PS2 only. I'm tempted to say that cartoon hedgehogs appeal to the same demographic as cartoon plumbers...

So, where's the GameCube version of Burnout Revenge or Burnout 3? I have Burnout 2 for the cube, but for some reason that's where support ended.

How about Star Wars? Dropped again for Star Wars Battlefront. NHL 2K5? NASCAR 06? Dropped the cube. So much for strongest sales.

Look, I own a GameCube. I used to buy GC versions of cross-platform games when possible, because the graphics were better and the hardware didn't sound like a vacuum cleaner. But over time, I noticed more and more that the cube versions of games were late to release, or cancelled entirely.

Then I got an HDTV and upgraded to a silent slimline PS2 with progressive scan, and it was all over. Nintendo don't support progressive scan (current cubes don't have it), and they often don't support widescreen either. Often the PS2 version of a game has extra levels, as well as added widescreen support. So now I skip Resident Evil 4 on GameCube, in favor of the PS2 version with progressive 16:9 and more game.

But I have no particular allegiance to Sony. I'm not going to be buying the PS3 when it first comes out; I'll do what I did with the PS2--wait around and see what the games are like. If Nintendo deliver a good library of software with robust widescreen support and a nice quiet hardware package, I'll get a Revolution.

larnin'

[plonk420]

Nintendo sure has learned a lot since the days of the SNES -they learned that developers went gaga over the prospect of tons of space even tho it took a while to master the downsides to the format -they learned that they could make a little more money by bending their "family oriented" games rule -they learned that ~~ i have no idea wtf the whole N64 fiasco was ~~ something about overhyped, underdelivering, hard-to-program-for hardware? and, well, my videogame rag subs ran out sometime in the first few quarters of the GC's existence, so .. yeah

Revolutionary

[mcvos]

Since we've seen that the Revolution isn't revolutionary hardware-wise,

Depends on what you call "revolutionary" ofcourse. It's a lot more revolutionary than its competitors, which are just more of the same.

I wasn't really expecting holographic interfaces yet, but that controller certainly opens new possibilities.

Dev Kit Reviews?

[rubberbando]

I apologize if I am being off topic but since Revolution Dev Kits are pretty cheap. I was considering getting one myself as a way to break into the console gaming market. However, $2000 is still a big investment for someone of my current income level. Therefore, I have to ask if anyone can point me in the direction of some reviews of the dev kits as well as some more detailed information of what they include (especially in the form of development tools).

Thanks in advance. :-)

Re:Dev Kit Reviews?

[rabbot]

You might want to head over to http://www.warioworld.com/ to get an idea for the process you have to go through in order to get your hands on previous dev kits. I believe metrowerks makes tools for game dev http://www.metrowerks.com/.

Now, things may be different for the rev since it looks like they might let indy devs get their hands on these relatively easily, but in the past I think you needed a dev license just to obtain the kits.

I'm in the same boat as you, I'd really like to work on this system as well.

Re:Dev Kit Reviews?

[antime]

You can't buy devkits as a private person. You need to be set up as a licensed third-party developer and for that you need a company, a business plan and all sorts of things. If you want to try out console developing get a modded PS2 and use the homebrew kits that are available. The official hardware documentation is even available as part of the Linux kit, if you can find one second-hand.

Super Monkey Ball

[juletre]

Actually, a story did make it a lot better. Super Monkey Ball 2 had a story, and playing through that game was a lot more fun. It could also be because they switched from the insultingly easy "easy", ok "medium" and impossible "hard" modes to one campaign that got gradually more difficult.

Konami

[Zangief]

I wish some companies like Konami announce support. Apparently, they hate Nintendo.

The only thing that Konami did for the Gamecube, was a disney game, and giving the license to Silicon Knights to make Metal Gear Solid: The Twin Snakes.