The Pressures on the Next Nintendo Console

With the launch of Nintendo's next-gen offering a little more than two months away, the importance that Nintendo is placing on this console is finally becoming apparent. Dyed-in-the-wool Nintendo loyalists and haters alike have both come to the same conclusion: if Nintendo is to stay a force in the non-portable console market, this system has to succeed. Along those lines, WhatEntertainment offers an editorial entitled Failure is not an Option. It explores the reality that Nintendo's failure would have repercussions on the industry as a whole. "Most of all I'm worried what this might do to the industry if it's a failure. In a landscape already filled with the carcasses of those that dared to try something new, and publishers more afraid than ever to try something a little different, the high-profile failure of a system that tried to put innovation and fun before graphics could be the final nail in the coffin of creativity." Meanwhile, GameInformer has a piece entitled Will Wii be Dissapointed Again? Billy Berghammer says what he doesn't want to say: the Wii could be another flop for Nintendo. From that article: "The launch price is low enough (outside of the $60 for controller costs) to avoid damaging my wallet the same way the purchase of a Xbox 360 or PlayStation 3 will, and the possibilities and promises from Nintendo somehow still keep me hoping for a bright future. But for now, the future is made up of many of the same promises and hopes I had when the N64 and GameCube were announced. I just hope I don't end up being disappointed once again."

Comments

Zelda, Mario, Rinse, Repeat

[ACAx1985]

As long as Nintendo continues the Mario, Zelda, (etc) franchises, their consoles will continue to sell with or without third party support. Fact is, their first party games are just THAT good.

Re:Zelda, Mario, Rinse, Repeat

[masklinn]

Indeed.

Plus the Nintendo war chest that dates back from the NES era (remember kids: nintendo has never EVER lost any money, even on hardware sales, even for a quarter, even during the worst of the GameCube era) is humongous, and the DS Lite prints money after all.

They can afford several more gamecube-level failures, especially since gamecube-level failures still nets them profits without even the need for first-party games.

Re:Zelda, Mario, Rinse, Repeat

[DorkusMasterus]

Well, I didn't read the article, but the the implication I get is not that Nintendo needs this to be a hit financially, as much as in the public opinion arena, to be a true contender in the console market in the future.

I don't think anyone in their right mind could justify saying Nintendo is going to be in trouble (as a company) if the Wii disappoints. However, it is likely that if it doesn't sell well, and people generally don't adopt it well, that Nintendo may start to be seen as "the" handheld company, and not the "video game" company it is currently. Does that make sense? I just think it's deeper than financial. Sony's not going to fail if the PS3 fails. But it's games division, SCE, will be rocky. But Nintendo, as stated, will make a profit on each unit, ensuring Nintendo isn't going anywhere soon.

But it may not be on people's radar unless they make Wii stick with gamers.

Re:Zelda, Mario, Rinse, Repeat

[Chris Burke]

The HARDWARE costs nets them a profit, they still have R&D costs though.

Right, right. So they have to do well enough to recoup their R&D cost. The reason why having a for-profit hardware console is important is that it means the very first sale of their console starts paying off that R&D cost. This is why they were able to make all their money back and them some despite the "failure" that was the Gamecube. If they had tried selling their console at a loss, like Microsoft, then they would most likely have ended up losing money overall, again like Microsoft.

Instead, they made money. And that was on what was possibly the least exciting most "me-too" Nintendo console ever.

Re:Zelda, Mario, Rinse, Repeat

[Doytch]

I just think it's deeper than financial. Sony's not going to fail if the PS3 fails. But it's games division, SCE, will be rocky Huh? The only division in Sony that actually makes money is the Games division. The fact that every division in Sony is throwing their products onto the PS3 only shows that the PS3 is their only hope. Pioneer forced Sony out of plasmas pretty much by themselves, and Sharp is killing them in LCDs. Throw in the fact that the PS3 is incurring massive costs for Sony and you'll see that if the PS3 legitimately fails, Sony will be in big shit.

Opinion of article....

[Aeron65432]

Another flop? Did I miss something?
"Nintendo reported that as of June 30, 2006 they have sold a total of 21.00 million Nintendo GameCube units worldwide."
"With 32.93 million Nintendo 64 units sold worldwide..."

They're not #1, but they are certainly a strong (read: profitable) second-place contender. I wonder what these flops are?

Re:Opinion of article....

[masklinn]

Nintendo was actually 3rd place worldwide on the last generation... in unit sales (Microsoft shipped 24 million xbox)

Of course, Nintendo trounced MS in Japan and got a damn huge lot of profits out of the gamecube era (hint: you're nearly the only game publisher for a 20million user base. Ohhh look, every single release gets a million sales!) while Microsoft lost $2billion in the process. But on shipped units count, they lost.

Re:Opinion of article....

[ClamIAm]

I don't think you understand... Nintendo is always on the brink of failure. Yeah, they completely own the handheld console market. True, they don't lose money on hardware like Microsoft. Oh yeah, and they've only had one unprofitable quarter in their 100+ year history. But wait! No! They're doomed! (really)

Look at sales of the DS

[dividedsky319]

I don't think anyone expected the DS to be as big as it has become. The same could turn out to be true for the Wii.

Plus, BECUASE the DS has become so popular, I think that people will be a lot more willing to give the Wii a chance.

Obviously only time can tell, but I think the DS's success is very important to the Wii...

Same Arguments as DS had

[MuNansen]

The same arguments that were made against the DS are being used against the Wii ("gimmicky," lesser graphics power, etc.) as that Game Informer article proves. He hardly even mentioned the DS. He also neglects to mention the Sony backlash, and the fact that we're now in a time where people are a bit tired of the graphics arms race between M$ and Sony, and would like something new. At least to a further extent than has been true for consoles in the past.

That doesn't guarantee success by any means. There's just a lot of positive angles that the author was ignoring.

Re:Same Arguments as DS had

[ArwynH]

The handheld market is a different game.

No, not really. Remember when the PSP was coming out how everyone was oo-ing and aah-ing the 'technologicaly impressive' PSP? I remember it well, mostly because I was one of the those posting replies to posts like yours, that stated Nintendo has had it and that those two screens, mic and touch screen were all gimics, especially when compared to the PSP which is 'more powerfull than the PS1'. Of course all I could say at the time was 'think of the possibilities!'. Now it's more or less a done deal and pretty much everyone accepts that the DS was a good idea. At least I haven't heard anyone call any of the DSs features a gimic in a while now.

The technology is not just unimpressive...

The controller is more impressive than two screen, a touch screen and a mic if you ask me.

...it's backwards and it doesn't have the price advantage...

Backwards? I doubt it. It's specs might not look as impressive as it's rivals, but numbers aren't what define technology. For instance, from what I hear, it's power consumption is pretty minimal. This means very little heat and smaller compact device. In those respects it's light-years ahead of it's rivals.

As for price, in Japan it's half-price of it's only rival. 250,000 compared to 600,000. I'd call that an advantage.

In the rest of the world it's cheaper than the cut-down version of the Xbox and includes a game. That is also what I'd call a price advantage. Don't forget those are release prices, I suspect the difference will grow further into the cycle.

...than the 'big boys'

Yes, the other consoles are a bit big aren't they...

The only real selling point the Wii has over the competition is Nintendo's stable of games, and look where that has got them since the N64

Looked at Nintendo's software sales recently? I'd say they've done pretty well for themselves. Considering they are one of histories most successful game makers ( and a lot of those games were post-snes), I say that thier catalog was worth quite a bit.

Re:Same Arguments as DS had

[fwarren]

I am a 40 year old programmer, been on computers since I was 15, never owned a game console, and have three kids.

My youngest is out at his friends, he has played them all, XBox 360, Xbox, PS2, Gamecube, and N64. For playability, he likes the N64 the best.

For the first time in my life, I am very tempted to put a game console under the chrismas tree. That would end up being a Wii as a family gift and a game for each of the kids.

I am sure many less tech savy folks than me will go, "Oh, I know my kid has their heart set on an XBox360, but at $400.00, I can get this $250.00 Nintendo system, buy some games for it, and still come out with an Xbox 360. I am sure the kids will like the Wii."

Doom and gloom

[urbanradar]

It seems to me that TFA is just trying to cash in on the current Wii frenzy. It's the old trick: Write something controversial, watch it get slashdotted before long, and watch the ad revenue flow in.

Personally, I'm unconvinced. IMHO, the Gamecube failed due to two points. It was underpowered compared to the XBox and the PS2, but yet didn't have enough innovative features to really differentiate itself from the competition. And, secondly, there weren't all that many games for it. The N64, too, suffered from this.

With the Wii, Nintendo has already taken care of those points upfront. Not only are we going to have tons of classic games from older consoles, a lot of vendors have also already pledged support for the Wii.
And as for being underpowered, well, yes, the Wii isn't as powerful as the XBox360 and the PS3, but the sheer freshness of its gameplay and its innovative games should more than make up for it. Especially since the Wii is being marketed as the "console for everyone". If Nintendo's strategy works, a lot of people who wouldn't otherwise have bought a console will buy a Wii, and they won't care about sheer raw power. And neither will Nintendo fanboys.

So I don't see why the Wii should suffer from the same problems as the N64 and the Gamecube.

Failure

[MBCook]

I agree it would be a terrible thing for the industry if the console were to fail, but it would be OK with me.

I had an N64 and it was my favorite console of that generation by far. Some people say it "failed" because it didn't put The Big N back on top. I really enjoyed the thing, and I'm glad I bought it.

I have a 'Cube and many people say it failed (or is close). I've bought FAR more games for the 'cube than my XBox and PS2. It was a great little system. I don't regret buying it at all.

If the Wii fails, so what. I can afford to lose $250 on a console that that will only have a bunch of great games during it's life (Marios, Zeldas, Pikmins, Smash Brothers, etc.). That's OK with me. It will be sad, but I'll still love the games.

Let's not forget that even if Nintendo's grand experiment fails (the controller) everyone could always use the "classic" controller for the rest of the console's life-span (not unlike the NES Zapper was basically forgotten about). The Wiimote can still be used for fun with light-gun games (and is worth it for me for that fact alone).

The PS3 is $600. I'm not buying that until I'm dead sure there are tons of games I want for it. Even with the price drop that will have to happen by the time I buy it.

The 360 is $400. It's not as worrying as the PS3 but that's still a fair amount of money.

The Wii is $250, and worse case scenerio I can use it as a replacement 'Cube and have a few new fun games.

The Wii may "fail" because it doesn't take over the industry or ends up in 3rd place, but I bet I'll still love it anyway.

All that said, who do we think... objectivly... is the most likely to fail? The cheap one with the "gimmick", the expensive one that is more of the same, or the obscenely expensive one that currently seems like more of the same?

$60 unreasonable price for controller?

[LoverOfJoy]

I keep seeing these jabs on the price of the Nintendo controller (both parts). I can understand the disappointment. After the prices for x360 and ps3 people are looking to Nintendo as cheap affordable fun. Add on to that, Nintendo is well-known for making great party games and seem in a position to continue that so multiple controllers for a nintendo system seems a given. Given all that, is anybody seriously surprised by the price of the controllers? Sure, they probably could have taken a loss or a smaller profit by pricing the pair for $50 (35 and 15?) but is that typically the place to have lower profit margins? You're going to pay $50 for a wireless x360 controller and likely at least that much for a ps3 one. Why would anyone expect to see less for a two component wireless controller that probably has more state of the art technology in it? I wish they released a wii bundle with an extra controller rather than a game but I can see why they went the other way. To me, this is just further evidence that they will be successful. Financially, they'll make money. And because the wii is so much cheaper to develop for, they don't even need to have a HUGE install base for developers to continue giving support. Developers don't need to sell as many to make all their money back and then some. Finally, if the games are frequently $10 cheaper it won't take long before you've saved enough from the games to pay for the $10 more expensive controllers.

Re:It costs a Wii bit too much

[GreatDrok]

This is a console with about the same horsepower as the original XBOX (technology circa 2002) with a new age powerglove for a controller, all selling at a premium price. This thing will be a museum piece long before it reaches the traditional console end-of-life cycle. It's just not worth it.

I don't know how you figure that out. Unlike the Xbox versus Xbox 360 you can directly compare the performance/power of the Wii against the Game Cube. The GC was only barely less powerful than the Xbox and certainly more powerful than the PS2. The Wii is pretty much a GC with 3x the clock speed on both CPU and graphics while being fully backwards compatible so it will be able to perfectly play GC games many of which are very good so there is a large library of available games to buy and be reissued.

No-one is going to argue that the raw compute power of the Wii is pretty far behind the 360 and PS3 but it really doesn't matter if none of the games really do much new. The 360 and PS3 are nothing but the evolution of the NES, nothing new, just more power. Nintendo defined the current controller structure and the Wii redefines it.

Judging by the number of people queuing up to pre-order the Wii this last weekend I think it is going to be very successful.

Re: PS2 was Weakest...

[trdrstv]

It was underpowered compared to the XBox and the PS2,

Incorrect. The PS2 was the least powerful contender this time around (after the Dreamcast dropped out fo course) The only thing the GC didn't have hardware wise over the PS2 was disk capacity, since they went with mini DVDs, and not DVD9's. For a good comparison of capable graphics, play RE4 for each.

I don't understand the 'Graphics Arms Race' much as The PS2 was technically inferior to both the GC, and X-box yet the PS2 had the largest user base. The PS1 was inferior to the N64 (except for disk / cartrige capacity) yet the PS1 sold more. The DS is weaker than the PSP, yet is sells more. The Gameboy was weaker than all competitors, but crushed the competition.

Clearly 'power' =/= greater sales. There is more to it than that.

Re:It costs a Wii bit too much

[Anonymous Coward]

As I understand it the processor on the Wii is made by IBM and is 800Mhz or less

Actually, all we know about the Wii's GPU (code name Hollywood) and CPU (code name broadway) is that they're custom built processors manufactured using a 90nm SOI CMOS process; the process is the same process which was used on the PowePC 970 processors (the G5) which came in single and dual core configurations and ran between 1.5GHz and 2.5GHz. We have heard from ATI that the graphics demonstrated at E3 were just "The tip of the iceburg".

Recently, in an interview with UBIsoft about RedSteel, it was reported that UBIsoft did not recieve Wii hardware until 2 months before E3 and they did not have time to complete the artistic upgrades before the demo had to be ready for testing (most developers require 4-6 weeks of testing a demo prior to E3); this meant that the E3 demo was more representative of what was running on Gamecube hardware than what the Wii can do. Now, I'm not arguing that the Wii is a technological marvel but it is not incapable of adequate graphics ( http://media.wii.ign.com/media/821/821973/img_3914 539.html ),

The one thing I will say about your "under 800MHz remark" is that I know for a fact that EBgames was publishing the fake IGN specs and received a nice visit from Nintendo's laywer; now they publish the same specs Nintendo does. Matt from IGN was either lying or believed a lie.

Re:Oh noes, the sky is falling!

[Anonymous Coward]

I loved those games! Sony really knows how to develop good ones.

Oh, wait.

The real winner for this generation is...

[NinjaFarmer]

IBM. IBM won this generation hands down. They managed to convince not one, but three major companies to bankroll their R&D for brand new top of the line chipsets. So, here is the story as I've managed to put together so far:

IBM: Alright, we seem to be falling a little behind on our high end chipsets, and we need to develop something new and spazzy. Hm... phone rings

Sony: Hey IBM! Were starting to develop a new console and were interested in developing a new chipset for it.

IBM: I know JUST what you need. You want the biggest baddest most powerful chip ever created. You want more power, speed, and flexibility than anything seen before. I'm telling you, 8 cores! Eight!

Sony: Power hm.... I don't..

IBM: cutting in This will be the fastest chip in the world! Your box will be more powerful than a supercomputer! How can you say no to that!

Sony: Hm... Ok were sold. We'll send our guys over to work out the details hangs up

IBM: Alright! That problem solved (idiots). Hm... Maybe Microsoft will be interested in something similar. Calls MicrosoftYo Bill!

Microsoft: Hey wazzup!

IBM: Well... I'm not supposed to tell you this but... let me let you in on a little secret about what Sony is up to...

A minute later
Microsoft: Hm... it sounds a little expensive, but we've gotta match them in power. Hm... maybe if we got our system out waay ahead of them.... How about we help develop an earlier version of your super processor, and we'll say that you really don't need a supercomputer to run games. That works. Alright deal.

IBM: Alright! I'll talk to ya later! Hangs up

IBM: I wonder what my pool would look like full of Benjamins. Man I can't believe those dupes agreed to bankroll our superchip. Now... it seems like our high end embedded processor could use a boost. Now what idiot will pay for the fastest and most energy efficient chip ever created.... Well now those guys at Nintendo might actually do it. Yea... They'll jump right on it, just as soon as they see the cost estimate for Sony and Microsoft... hehe.

IBM dials the phone
IBM: Yo Shiggy! Have I got a deal for you! I'm not really supposed to tell you this but... Sony and Microsoft are in the works to develop the most powerful chip ever created. Why don't you take a look at the materials here... emails Nintendo a set of documents. The cost estimates is very prominantly displayed throughout the documents

Nintendo: Hm... That's pretty impressive. But I don't think we can do that. It is awefully expensive....

IBM: That's no problem! In fact, I had something else in mind for you! Here let me send it over. This set of emails contains documentation on a chipset based on previous technology, but still very advanced. The word 'savings' can be seen repeatedly throughout the documentation

Nintendo: Wow! This is just what we wanted! Its perfect! Those fools at Sony will never know what hit them (hehe what a waste of money). Hangs up

IBM: Hehe... heh... dials on the phone Hey Bob and Sons construction? Yea hey! Yea the pool is awesome. In fact, that's why I called... No no, nothing's wrong with it, in fact... I want to expand it. Yea... Olimpic sized doable? Great.

Oblig. Sony complaints

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey there. It's me, the guy that fixes stuff at your local technology store here, to talk to you about why you shouldn't buy a Sony anything any time soon.

From the designs of their products, you can see that Sony has no interest whatsoever in making products that last beyond the warranty period. Their laptops have no latch securing the screen to the lapboard of the computer. When you put a Vaio in its sales floor box, with the hinge down, it literally falls open and cannot be closed. (I've even seen the new Blu-Ray equipped Vaios do this.) All the holding power that's supposed to keep the screen and the computer together when closed is in the hinge. Bad design.

Even better, Vaio laptops have the thinnest screen enclosures on the market. The enclosure has no ridge on the outer edge (like the ones you see on most other laptops, Apples and HPs to start) that redirects pressure to the outside of the enclosure and protects the screen. Instead, all the pressure goes directly on the screen. Maybe this is why all Vaios come back from repair with a note saying, "Your Vaio is designed for maximum durability. However, please refrain from putting pressure on the screen enclosure."

Sony cameras are probably worse. From their Handycams, that look and operate like relics from the late 90s but retail at futuristic prices, to their CyberShot cameras with touch screens on the back. One model has nothing but a power button and shutter on top and a touch screen covering the entire back of the camera, which controls everything else. It makes me wonder if Sony has an entire department dedicated to Putting Large LCDS on Things That Go In Pockets. Oh yes, and the batteries are proprietary, too.

Sony isn't doing too badly in audio equipment--their stuff seems to be on par with everyone elses. And their optical drives are decent but you wont see one in any non-Sony OEM machines. Not to mention their drives are more expensive.

For almost every technology thing you can name, Sony makes a souped-up, talked-up, marked-up version of their own. 99% of the time, it's just not worth the extra money.