You know, I've heard people say that before. Were you using the extra RAM that was available for the n64, because the frame rate in PD ran smoothly when I and my friends played. I rarely had issues with slowdown or the slideshow effect, and yet I continue to hear people complain about it.
Most (emphasis on most) PS2 owners will not purchase a new gaming system until mid to late 2007. That is the main reason the delay is inconsequential. For the greater majority of home console owners, the number of games already out or sufficient for them. The hardcore gamers are the only ones who A) will purchase a new system early in it's lifespan, B) are loyal enough to a particular brand to disregard the experience offered by a competitor. Aside from the early rush for Christmas presents, most of those system sales will happen in 2007. The 2007 christmas season will likely see anywhere from 2x to 4x the sales of any given next-gen game system as the 2006 christmas season.
I think Nintendo has the perfect way to coutneract that particular issue. When you're in Wal-Mart, and there's two demo stations with standard controllers, and a 3rd demo station with a remote control that people are waving around, you're gonna notice a difference.
I don't see how this really matters at all. There are two possibilities.
Either they will make it so it requires the shell to play, and there are some mini-games or whatnot that use the Rev controller. This seems most likely, as it means that you don't have to go out and buy a gamecube controller to go with our Revolution just to play TP.
The other method would be to have the game totaly restructured so that it takes full advantage of the Revmote, but then you've made two totally separate play experiences in the same game, thusly splitting your audience.
The first way, it's hardly worth it, except to save some people a little money, which they'll still have to spend if they're interested in any other GC games. The second way makes releasing it as a GC game pretty much pointless (either that or requiring 2 play throughs the same game to get the full experience).
This is hardly cause for excitement. Meh.
The thing I find most interesting is that Gamespy is helping to develop the Playstation network. Gamespy also helped develop the Nintendo WiFi network the DS & Revolution are/will be using.
The "weaknesses" in the DS WiFi network are design choices on Nintendo's part, and may be different for the Revolution. With the services being developed by the same partners, and Sony looking to emulate Xbox Live (the only one developed without Gamespy's input it seems), it will be interesting to see how differently these two services turn out, or if there's very much difference between them at all.
I personally loathe gamespy, as a service and a program, not as a company, but DS Wifi play is quite fun, and costs me nothing. The network is very stable, and aside from a few issues caused by Nintendo themselves (such as accidentally sending an incomplete gift to Animal Crossing users that somehow blanked out a datapoint in your house) it has been flawless. I'm looking forward to how these 3 different online systems pan out, and whether there'll be a significant between them, or if an unified online network is just the price of entry this generation.
Miyamoto:
You don't frighten us, Sony pig-dogs! Go and boil your bottom, sons of a silly person. I blow my nose at you, so-called Kutaragi Ken, you and all your silly Sony k-nnnnniggets. Thpppppt! Thppt! Thppt!
The DS actually had fewer launch games than the PSP.
The determination of how many games is enough games varies from person to person. As a person who currently owns 20 games for the DS, the PSP has too few games for me. However, for most normal people, the number of games in the PSP's game library is more than sufficient. Most people complain about the quality of the games, not the number.
Personally, I think the quality of PSP titles available are just fine, and I don't think anyone would comment on it, if it weren't for the fact that 75% of the software library for the DS isn't just good, it's damn near perfect. Had the DS not been released around the same time as the PSP, the PSP would be doing quite well right now.
I blame the developers for a different reason.
on
PSP Devs Should Pony Up
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
The problem with the PSP is who is developing the games for it. All the PSP games are being developed by teams that worked on the PS2, when they should be developed by teams who worked on the GBA (I'm looking directly at you Konami, and you, too, Capcom).
The simple fact of the matter is that gameplay on a handheld is inherently different from gameplay on a home console. This is a known fact, has been known for years, as the gameboy has outlasted every other handheld that has entered the market. The main reason being, the other handhelds were structured just as portable home consoles, and therefore they ignored several important issues involving battery life, short learning curve and gameplay that's easy to get into and out of quickly.
People are calling PSP the King of Ports because that's all that's being made, console ports you can carry with you. And, unfortunately, that just doesn't sell a portable system, because while the system is portable, the game is not. Most of these companies have development groups within them that have worked on GBC & GBA and produced hits, some have even produced hits on the DS. If those same teams were working on the PSP, instead of teams who've only really worked with the PS2, and maybe the Xbox or GCN, you'd see better, more interesting PSP games.
But with things being the way they are, it's very unlikely. It seems as if the PSP is going to suffer the same fate the GCN suffered. It's not selling well compared to it's competition, and so it will lose developer support, meaning even fewer people will purchase it.
I don't expect Sony to sell the PS3 for more than $500, but I don't see how they can manage less than $500 now. They own the BluRay standard, yes, but for HD movie playback with BluRay, they have to meet AACS standards set by the members of the MPAA. Currently the only chip compatible with those standards is an Intel chip which Sony has no stake in, does not currently own the rights to manufacture themselves, and therefore will have to buy outright from Intel. That alone is going to add another $100-$150 to the manufacturing price of the system, even in bulk. Unless Sony can acquire the rights to manufacture those chips themselves (unlikely) that price will not drop significantly (the reason Microsoft lost so much money on the Xbox, they only put the system together, all the parts were manufactured by other companies and bought outright).
but I think you can pretty much be assured that the lifecycle of the Revolution won't go anything like the Gamecube, for one simple reason.
Satoru Iwata.
If you have not been paying attention to Nintendo recently (the past year and a half or so) you may not have noticed, but as a company Nintendo has changed significantly. The reason for this is Hiroshi Yamauchi stepped down as president and Satoru Iwata took over. For proof, look to the DS. Yamauchi had nothing to do with the DS, it was Iwata's project. His first console launch, sort of his chance to prove himself.
Nintendo has changed a lot with it's new leadership. It is a more aggressive company, and a more stylish company. They are in the process of revamping their image, and that means the focus on the Revolution is going to be entirely different from the focus of the gamecube.
I, of course, have my own ideas, but I'm looking forward to how they're going to market the Revolution, and what sort of games we'll see for it.
Nintendo has always cared about their image. It's just a matter of priorities. Before they were more concerned with the image their games presented, not the image their system presented, because the system aesthetic didn't seem to matter to them.
The primary reason for that change is that the president of the company has changed. Everything about the DS is the responsibility of Satoru Iwata. It's his first system launch. He's been responsible for the direction Nintendo is going in now, so you can expect the Revolution launch and lifecycle to go more like the DS'.
Yes, I agree. The reason the GC has sold less than it's competitors is because there was really nothing new on it. Nintendo has always been a hotbed of innovation, with the NES, Gameboy, SNES, n64, GBA & now the DS. The GC stands out as being more an evolution of what was already there than an innovation, and it's sold less than any console they've ever released.
Nintendo has noticed this and commented on it on several occasions (I'm speaking specifically of Satoru Iwata here), so you can bet that the Revolution will be a significant improvement on the GC in terms of innovative gameplay.
According to all the major 3rd party developers, that's exactly not the case.
For instance, Capcom has already said that, because of the nature of the controller, they'd prefer to make a Revolution specific Resident Evil, rather than just porting ResEvil 5 over.
Midway has said much the same thing.
The Revolution promises something new because of the 3 consoles, it's the only one that can do something none of the other consoles can do, and that's detect movement in 3 dimensions. Anything the PS3 & 360 can do, the Rev can do, maybe not as well, but good enough to make an enjoyable experience.
That's a bit disingenious however. The market grew significantly between those two periods. Looking at marketshare, out of every household available, the 60 million NES units sold accounted for 80% of all households in the world (the world being the markets in which the NES was released).
Now, the total sales for the PS2, GC & Xbox still only accounts for about 80% of all households in the world, probably less actually. The percentage of gaming households has not increased, and some studies show it has decreased. Unless the PS2 is in 80% of all households, the fact it sold more than the NES can be accounted for easily by the fact that we've gone from about 5 billion to over 6 billion people on this planet in the past 20 years, as well as opened up markets to gaming that were never tapped during the time of the NES.
So while his numbers aren't necessarily the proper ones to be using, his conclusions are still almost certainly correct.
Did you actually look at the release lists for February. Not much of any actual interest was released in February. Fight Night Round 3 and Grandia III, and maybe Brain Age if it was actually released in Feb, are the only things I can recall. It's a bit of a slump month, nothing to see here. Look forward to March, where it's just started, and I've already purchased 2 games (both DS of course, but there's actually something to look forward to this month).
Fun isn't measured in the time it takes for a game to be released, fun is measured in how much actual fun you have playing the game. I own more PS2 games than I do GC games, but I still had more fun playing GC games, and in fact, spent more time playing them. Super Smash Bros. Melee alone I probably clocked more time on than I have any other 3 games released this generation, and every second of it was fun (even when it was frustrating).
I'm not saying there aren't fun games on PS2 or Xbox, but I had more fun overall with the GC. I expect the same thing with the Rev, because while I may not know specific games for the console (although I know several that have been confirmed in development), I know from 20 years of experience that I enjoy games developed and/or published by Nintendo. Same for Sega (although I can get Sega games on any system, although a lot seem to make it to Nintendo systems).
And before you complain about the small number of releases for the GC, I suggest you make sure you actually bought one. The number of games released for a console are directly proportional to the number of consoles sold. Developers go where the potential for money is, and that potential is with which console has the most units in customers' homes.
He knows this because Nintendo has said it. While I don't have the link, either Reggie Fils-Aime, or possibly Perrin Kaplan, has already said that gamecube controllers will only work with gamecube games.
Of course, since the hardware is there, there is nothing stopping developers from utilizing that as an option with new games, but if Nintendo doesn't do it, don't expect 3rd party developers to even consider it.
There's also the fact that, except for the aforementioned X-2, all the Final Fantasy games take place on completely different, totally unrelated worlds. So, in essence, each one is Final. It happens, you win or you lose, and then we never really see or hear from that world again.
They learned that lesson about 3 years ago. You know, about the time they signed deals with Capcom & Namco promising them cheaper license fees in exchange for developing exclusive content for the gamecube.
I shouldn't even bother to respond to this, but I'll go ahead.
Nintendo could compete with Microsoft directly. They have better relations with many 3rd parties, large sums of liquid capital, and knowledge of how to build a system. They could make a system signficantly superior to the 360 for less money, and sell it for about the same price, or slightly lower. They could then spend some of their money to purchase exclusive titles away from Sony & Microsoft, simultaneously weakening their competiton and strenghtening themselves.
However, Nintendo doesn't want to do that, because it's a losing proposition. It'll increase their market share, but won't really make them money, and Nintendo prefers to make money.
As far as the gimmick issue. When Nintendo first announced the rumble pack, people laughed at them, called it a gimmick. So why is the rumble pack standard on every single controller in existence now? The same with the control pad, the analog stick, shoulder buttons. All these things are standards in the industry now. But you have to remember, Nintendo did not create any of these. Not a single one. All Nintendo did was perfect them, and put them on the market at a viable time. Considering how fantastically the DS is selling (for it's time on market, it's outsold the PS2 so far, as well as the GBA), it looks as if they've done the same thing with touchscreens, which they certainly didn't invent (since virtually every PDA ever has had one). A gimmick is only a gimmick until everyone is using it.
So sure, 3d mice exist, but Nintendo isn't making a 3d mouse. There's a reason they chose the current shape for the controller. Nintendo is experienced at taking a control scheme and perfecting it for gameplay. That's what they do, and that's what they've chosen to compete with this go around. They decided to work to their strengths instead of trying to one-up everyone else.
As far as the HD issue, I work for a cable company. I have a pretty damn good idea of how fast HD penetration is going. Things may change in the next few years, but right now, I have to say Nintendo knows what they're talking about.
You make some valid points, but everything you mention, pcs have been doing for the past 2 or 3 years, in some cases better and more efficiently than 360, and in some cases more complicated.
Also, online, Everyone has been talking about Xbox Live Arcade. XBLA is the only part of the 360 that no one has had anything bad to say about it. It's a complete success, but it also leads people to wonder why they paid $400 for something they can get, for free in most cases, on a pc they already have (I suppose households without a pc might benefit, but I'm really, really having a hard time envisioning that particular scenario. I know it exists, I work in cable internet, but it floors me every time).
Everything you're talking about, Sony has promised, and those promises have gotten more robust as time passes. All that remains to be seen is whether they can make good on those promises.
Yes, it's a valid point that 360 is able to do it now, but if you weren't doing it before, how desperately important are these things that you can't wait a year for the PS3 to see if it does it better?
Don't get me wrong, I don't think Sony's gonna be able to swing an online service that comes anywhere near Live out of the gate, but what they're offering is not something I'm impatiently awaiting either. I can afford to wait, and if Live proves to be better than HUB, then that's what I'll go with.
What I'm saying is, online delivery may be a killer app. Media Center extension may be the wave of the future. But it's something totally, entirely new, something that hasn't been a part of console game systems before, so it's not something people can live without yet, so it's not really going to affect the buying decision of the majority.
Of course, I buy systems based on games. At this point, I will not purchase an Xbox 360 until Lost Odyssey comes out. That's the system selling game for me. Unless they release something else I must own before then, which might persuade me to buy into it earlier. Otherwise, no go.
Similarly, I'll pick up a PS3 when a game comes out I've decided I have to have, which I can't play on any other system.
That's the main problem with the 360 for me. There is nothing on it that I want that I cannot get on either the PC, GC, PS2 or Xbox I already have. But that's just me. Other people buy for other reasons. I have a pc sitting in my living room for this kind of thing, and 2 pcs in my bedroom. I'm a geek, I tinker with pcs for this sort of thing without hardly thinking about it, so don't base the buying decisions of anyone else on what I would do.
As far as the Revolution is concerned, Nintendo has promised nothing but fun games and new ways to play them. If you care about something other than that, Revolution may not be the way to go.
The most anticipated game in North America right now is Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, but I'll give you that Halo 3 is in the top 5.
If the PS3 releases in June at $400, it will absolutely destroy the 360 in sales, at least for a while. Releasing that early, it won't have many more launch titles than the 360 had. So basically, it will be on almost the exact same footing as the 360, except it will have the Playstation name going for it, and that still counts for more than the Xbox name right now.
I agree that this scenario is unlikely. Even if the PS3 releases in June, I doubt it'll be a simultaneous worldwide release. I'd expect a June release for Japan, and a US release, at best, by September.
Of course, with no in game footage shown yet, and, in fact, nothing concrete shown except the cell processor, I don't see it making that target. And Sony is not like Nintendo. Nintendo never says anything, until it's already working 100% and nearly complete. Sony is 'teh hype machine', and I think if they had playable software that could compare to what the 360 has, they'd have shown it by now. Promises and videos are great for hype, until you show those same exact videos for the 4th or 5th time. In this case, Nintendo has done better by not showing videos. Had they shown videos of games in play at E3 or even TGS last year, we'd have been wowed, it'd've generated hype, but if they went to GDC and showed those exact same videos again, we'd be showing the same sort of general disappointment we're showing for PS3. It's not that we don't believe the hype (we always want to believe the hype), but man does not live by hype (and the occasional slice of bread) alone.
On the other end of the spectrum, I just don't see Halo 3 launching near simultaneously with the PS3, even if it's not out until November. It's all a matter of marketing here, and there are two different perspectives to look at.
Perspective 1: Halo is our flagship title, a million seller and highly anticipated. Guaranteed Xbox Live multiplay, when Sony's HUB service is still in it's infancy. We need to get it out there and crush Sony.
Perspective 2: Halo is our flagship title. As Halo goes, so goes Xbox. If we release Halo, and it's a great disappointment, our Xbox 360 system may never recover. We have to make this software as good as it can be however long it takes.
To quote, or most likely paraphrase Shigeru Miyamoto (when speaking in regards to Zelda:TP), 'A delayed game is eventually good. A rushed game is bad forever.'
The smart move on Microsoft's part, is to go with Plan 2 over Plan 1. Plan 1 would eat into the hype of the newly released PS3, but if a title that is veritably synonymous with the platform is universally panned, they're going to be hard put to hang on, and it's too early in the system's life cycle for a title of that caliber to be fit into a single year development cycle.
A final word. Don't underestimate the power of hype, but most of all, don't underestimate the disposability of hype. The PS3 doesn't have to lilve up to they hype it's generating. Once you've bought the system, that's recorded in sales numbers. Whichever system gets the most sales is the sytem that gets the most developers, which means it gets the most games. And games sell systems more than hype ever will. The PS3 just has to meet enough of the hype not to start riots, as long as it's a decently powerful system, with at least half the promised qualities available (not necessarily included, some people are fine with sold separately) they still have a chance. Look at all the hype that surrounded to PS2. How much of it actually panned out? Half? Less than half? Sure, people were disappointed, but they got over it, cause one stunning game, one memorable experience, wipes all the hype away.
While Playstation certainly has more titles than Gamecube, gamecube has just as wide a variety of genres available as playstation, it just has differing amounts of games in those genre's. Every genre you've listed, and a few you skipped over, exist for gamecube. Some cross platform, some exclusive.
Speaking of the specific companies themselves, of course, titles developed and/or published by Nintendo do tend to have a broader spectrum than titles developed and/or published by Sony. Sony thrives primarily on 3rd parties. Nintendo has mostly depended on 1st parties because they did not have enough market share to garner truly strong 3rd party support.
Slashdot Mirror
You know, I've heard people say that before. Were you using the extra RAM that was available for the n64, because the frame rate in PD ran smoothly when I and my friends played. I rarely had issues with slowdown or the slideshow effect, and yet I continue to hear people complain about it.
Except not at sea.
Most (emphasis on most) PS2 owners will not purchase a new gaming system until mid to late 2007. That is the main reason the delay is inconsequential. For the greater majority of home console owners, the number of games already out or sufficient for them. The hardcore gamers are the only ones who A) will purchase a new system early in it's lifespan, B) are loyal enough to a particular brand to disregard the experience offered by a competitor. Aside from the early rush for Christmas presents, most of those system sales will happen in 2007. The 2007 christmas season will likely see anywhere from 2x to 4x the sales of any given next-gen game system as the 2006 christmas season.
I think Nintendo has the perfect way to coutneract that particular issue. When you're in Wal-Mart, and there's two demo stations with standard controllers, and a 3rd demo station with a remote control that people are waving around, you're gonna notice a difference.
I don't see how this really matters at all. There are two possibilities. Either they will make it so it requires the shell to play, and there are some mini-games or whatnot that use the Rev controller. This seems most likely, as it means that you don't have to go out and buy a gamecube controller to go with our Revolution just to play TP. The other method would be to have the game totaly restructured so that it takes full advantage of the Revmote, but then you've made two totally separate play experiences in the same game, thusly splitting your audience. The first way, it's hardly worth it, except to save some people a little money, which they'll still have to spend if they're interested in any other GC games. The second way makes releasing it as a GC game pretty much pointless (either that or requiring 2 play throughs the same game to get the full experience). This is hardly cause for excitement. Meh.
The "weaknesses" in the DS WiFi network are design choices on Nintendo's part, and may be different for the Revolution. With the services being developed by the same partners, and Sony looking to emulate Xbox Live (the only one developed without Gamespy's input it seems), it will be interesting to see how differently these two services turn out, or if there's very much difference between them at all.
I personally loathe gamespy, as a service and a program, not as a company, but DS Wifi play is quite fun, and costs me nothing. The network is very stable, and aside from a few issues caused by Nintendo themselves (such as accidentally sending an incomplete gift to Animal Crossing users that somehow blanked out a datapoint in your house) it has been flawless. I'm looking forward to how these 3 different online systems pan out, and whether there'll be a significant between them, or if an unified online network is just the price of entry this generation.
Miyamoto:
You don't frighten us, Sony pig-dogs! Go and boil your bottom, sons of a silly person. I blow my nose at you, so-called Kutaragi Ken, you and all your silly Sony k-nnnnniggets. Thpppppt! Thppt! Thppt!
The determination of how many games is enough games varies from person to person. As a person who currently owns 20 games for the DS, the PSP has too few games for me. However, for most normal people, the number of games in the PSP's game library is more than sufficient. Most people complain about the quality of the games, not the number.
Personally, I think the quality of PSP titles available are just fine, and I don't think anyone would comment on it, if it weren't for the fact that 75% of the software library for the DS isn't just good, it's damn near perfect. Had the DS not been released around the same time as the PSP, the PSP would be doing quite well right now.
The simple fact of the matter is that gameplay on a handheld is inherently different from gameplay on a home console. This is a known fact, has been known for years, as the gameboy has outlasted every other handheld that has entered the market. The main reason being, the other handhelds were structured just as portable home consoles, and therefore they ignored several important issues involving battery life, short learning curve and gameplay that's easy to get into and out of quickly.
People are calling PSP the King of Ports because that's all that's being made, console ports you can carry with you. And, unfortunately, that just doesn't sell a portable system, because while the system is portable, the game is not. Most of these companies have development groups within them that have worked on GBC & GBA and produced hits, some have even produced hits on the DS. If those same teams were working on the PSP, instead of teams who've only really worked with the PS2, and maybe the Xbox or GCN, you'd see better, more interesting PSP games.
But with things being the way they are, it's very unlikely. It seems as if the PSP is going to suffer the same fate the GCN suffered. It's not selling well compared to it's competition, and so it will lose developer support, meaning even fewer people will purchase it.
I don't expect Sony to sell the PS3 for more than $500, but I don't see how they can manage less than $500 now. They own the BluRay standard, yes, but for HD movie playback with BluRay, they have to meet AACS standards set by the members of the MPAA. Currently the only chip compatible with those standards is an Intel chip which Sony has no stake in, does not currently own the rights to manufacture themselves, and therefore will have to buy outright from Intel. That alone is going to add another $100-$150 to the manufacturing price of the system, even in bulk. Unless Sony can acquire the rights to manufacture those chips themselves (unlikely) that price will not drop significantly (the reason Microsoft lost so much money on the Xbox, they only put the system together, all the parts were manufactured by other companies and bought outright).
Satoru Iwata.
If you have not been paying attention to Nintendo recently (the past year and a half or so) you may not have noticed, but as a company Nintendo has changed significantly. The reason for this is Hiroshi Yamauchi stepped down as president and Satoru Iwata took over. For proof, look to the DS. Yamauchi had nothing to do with the DS, it was Iwata's project. His first console launch, sort of his chance to prove himself.
Nintendo has changed a lot with it's new leadership. It is a more aggressive company, and a more stylish company. They are in the process of revamping their image, and that means the focus on the Revolution is going to be entirely different from the focus of the gamecube.
I, of course, have my own ideas, but I'm looking forward to how they're going to market the Revolution, and what sort of games we'll see for it.
The primary reason for that change is that the president of the company has changed. Everything about the DS is the responsibility of Satoru Iwata. It's his first system launch. He's been responsible for the direction Nintendo is going in now, so you can expect the Revolution launch and lifecycle to go more like the DS'.
Nintendo has noticed this and commented on it on several occasions (I'm speaking specifically of Satoru Iwata here), so you can bet that the Revolution will be a significant improvement on the GC in terms of innovative gameplay.
For instance, Capcom has already said that, because of the nature of the controller, they'd prefer to make a Revolution specific Resident Evil, rather than just porting ResEvil 5 over.
Midway has said much the same thing.
The Revolution promises something new because of the 3 consoles, it's the only one that can do something none of the other consoles can do, and that's detect movement in 3 dimensions. Anything the PS3 & 360 can do, the Rev can do, maybe not as well, but good enough to make an enjoyable experience.
That's a bit disingenious however. The market grew significantly between those two periods. Looking at marketshare, out of every household available, the 60 million NES units sold accounted for 80% of all households in the world (the world being the markets in which the NES was released). Now, the total sales for the PS2, GC & Xbox still only accounts for about 80% of all households in the world, probably less actually. The percentage of gaming households has not increased, and some studies show it has decreased. Unless the PS2 is in 80% of all households, the fact it sold more than the NES can be accounted for easily by the fact that we've gone from about 5 billion to over 6 billion people on this planet in the past 20 years, as well as opened up markets to gaming that were never tapped during the time of the NES. So while his numbers aren't necessarily the proper ones to be using, his conclusions are still almost certainly correct.
Did you actually look at the release lists for February. Not much of any actual interest was released in February. Fight Night Round 3 and Grandia III, and maybe Brain Age if it was actually released in Feb, are the only things I can recall. It's a bit of a slump month, nothing to see here. Look forward to March, where it's just started, and I've already purchased 2 games (both DS of course, but there's actually something to look forward to this month).
I'm not saying there aren't fun games on PS2 or Xbox, but I had more fun overall with the GC. I expect the same thing with the Rev, because while I may not know specific games for the console (although I know several that have been confirmed in development), I know from 20 years of experience that I enjoy games developed and/or published by Nintendo. Same for Sega (although I can get Sega games on any system, although a lot seem to make it to Nintendo systems).
And before you complain about the small number of releases for the GC, I suggest you make sure you actually bought one. The number of games released for a console are directly proportional to the number of consoles sold. Developers go where the potential for money is, and that potential is with which console has the most units in customers' homes.
Of course, since the hardware is there, there is nothing stopping developers from utilizing that as an option with new games, but if Nintendo doesn't do it, don't expect 3rd party developers to even consider it.
There's also the fact that, except for the aforementioned X-2, all the Final Fantasy games take place on completely different, totally unrelated worlds. So, in essence, each one is Final. It happens, you win or you lose, and then we never really see or hear from that world again.
They learned that lesson about 3 years ago. You know, about the time they signed deals with Capcom & Namco promising them cheaper license fees in exchange for developing exclusive content for the gamecube.
Nintendo could compete with Microsoft directly. They have better relations with many 3rd parties, large sums of liquid capital, and knowledge of how to build a system. They could make a system signficantly superior to the 360 for less money, and sell it for about the same price, or slightly lower. They could then spend some of their money to purchase exclusive titles away from Sony & Microsoft, simultaneously weakening their competiton and strenghtening themselves.
However, Nintendo doesn't want to do that, because it's a losing proposition. It'll increase their market share, but won't really make them money, and Nintendo prefers to make money.
As far as the gimmick issue. When Nintendo first announced the rumble pack, people laughed at them, called it a gimmick. So why is the rumble pack standard on every single controller in existence now? The same with the control pad, the analog stick, shoulder buttons. All these things are standards in the industry now. But you have to remember, Nintendo did not create any of these. Not a single one. All Nintendo did was perfect them, and put them on the market at a viable time. Considering how fantastically the DS is selling (for it's time on market, it's outsold the PS2 so far, as well as the GBA), it looks as if they've done the same thing with touchscreens, which they certainly didn't invent (since virtually every PDA ever has had one). A gimmick is only a gimmick until everyone is using it.
So sure, 3d mice exist, but Nintendo isn't making a 3d mouse. There's a reason they chose the current shape for the controller. Nintendo is experienced at taking a control scheme and perfecting it for gameplay. That's what they do, and that's what they've chosen to compete with this go around. They decided to work to their strengths instead of trying to one-up everyone else.
As far as the HD issue, I work for a cable company. I have a pretty damn good idea of how fast HD penetration is going. Things may change in the next few years, but right now, I have to say Nintendo knows what they're talking about.
Also, online, Everyone has been talking about Xbox Live Arcade. XBLA is the only part of the 360 that no one has had anything bad to say about it. It's a complete success, but it also leads people to wonder why they paid $400 for something they can get, for free in most cases, on a pc they already have (I suppose households without a pc might benefit, but I'm really, really having a hard time envisioning that particular scenario. I know it exists, I work in cable internet, but it floors me every time).
Everything you're talking about, Sony has promised, and those promises have gotten more robust as time passes. All that remains to be seen is whether they can make good on those promises.
Yes, it's a valid point that 360 is able to do it now, but if you weren't doing it before, how desperately important are these things that you can't wait a year for the PS3 to see if it does it better?
Don't get me wrong, I don't think Sony's gonna be able to swing an online service that comes anywhere near Live out of the gate, but what they're offering is not something I'm impatiently awaiting either. I can afford to wait, and if Live proves to be better than HUB, then that's what I'll go with.
What I'm saying is, online delivery may be a killer app. Media Center extension may be the wave of the future. But it's something totally, entirely new, something that hasn't been a part of console game systems before, so it's not something people can live without yet, so it's not really going to affect the buying decision of the majority.
Of course, I buy systems based on games. At this point, I will not purchase an Xbox 360 until Lost Odyssey comes out. That's the system selling game for me. Unless they release something else I must own before then, which might persuade me to buy into it earlier. Otherwise, no go.
Similarly, I'll pick up a PS3 when a game comes out I've decided I have to have, which I can't play on any other system.
That's the main problem with the 360 for me. There is nothing on it that I want that I cannot get on either the PC, GC, PS2 or Xbox I already have. But that's just me. Other people buy for other reasons. I have a pc sitting in my living room for this kind of thing, and 2 pcs in my bedroom. I'm a geek, I tinker with pcs for this sort of thing without hardly thinking about it, so don't base the buying decisions of anyone else on what I would do.
As far as the Revolution is concerned, Nintendo has promised nothing but fun games and new ways to play them. If you care about something other than that, Revolution may not be the way to go.
So if all 3 of them run it, which are you getting then? The one that runs it first, or the one that runs it better?
If the PS3 releases in June at $400, it will absolutely destroy the 360 in sales, at least for a while. Releasing that early, it won't have many more launch titles than the 360 had. So basically, it will be on almost the exact same footing as the 360, except it will have the Playstation name going for it, and that still counts for more than the Xbox name right now.
I agree that this scenario is unlikely. Even if the PS3 releases in June, I doubt it'll be a simultaneous worldwide release. I'd expect a June release for Japan, and a US release, at best, by September.
Of course, with no in game footage shown yet, and, in fact, nothing concrete shown except the cell processor, I don't see it making that target. And Sony is not like Nintendo. Nintendo never says anything, until it's already working 100% and nearly complete. Sony is 'teh hype machine', and I think if they had playable software that could compare to what the 360 has, they'd have shown it by now. Promises and videos are great for hype, until you show those same exact videos for the 4th or 5th time. In this case, Nintendo has done better by not showing videos. Had they shown videos of games in play at E3 or even TGS last year, we'd have been wowed, it'd've generated hype, but if they went to GDC and showed those exact same videos again, we'd be showing the same sort of general disappointment we're showing for PS3. It's not that we don't believe the hype (we always want to believe the hype), but man does not live by hype (and the occasional slice of bread) alone. On the other end of the spectrum, I just don't see Halo 3 launching near simultaneously with the PS3, even if it's not out until November. It's all a matter of marketing here, and there are two different perspectives to look at.
Perspective 1: Halo is our flagship title, a million seller and highly anticipated. Guaranteed Xbox Live multiplay, when Sony's HUB service is still in it's infancy. We need to get it out there and crush Sony.
Perspective 2: Halo is our flagship title. As Halo goes, so goes Xbox. If we release Halo, and it's a great disappointment, our Xbox 360 system may never recover. We have to make this software as good as it can be however long it takes.
To quote, or most likely paraphrase Shigeru Miyamoto (when speaking in regards to Zelda:TP), 'A delayed game is eventually good. A rushed game is bad forever.'
The smart move on Microsoft's part, is to go with Plan 2 over Plan 1. Plan 1 would eat into the hype of the newly released PS3, but if a title that is veritably synonymous with the platform is universally panned, they're going to be hard put to hang on, and it's too early in the system's life cycle for a title of that caliber to be fit into a single year development cycle. A final word. Don't underestimate the power of hype, but most of all, don't underestimate the disposability of hype. The PS3 doesn't have to lilve up to they hype it's generating. Once you've bought the system, that's recorded in sales numbers. Whichever system gets the most sales is the sytem that gets the most developers, which means it gets the most games. And games sell systems more than hype ever will. The PS3 just has to meet enough of the hype not to start riots, as long as it's a decently powerful system, with at least half the promised qualities available (not necessarily included, some people are fine with sold separately) they still have a chance. Look at all the hype that surrounded to PS2. How much of it actually panned out? Half? Less than half? Sure, people were disappointed, but they got over it, cause one stunning game, one memorable experience, wipes all the hype away.
While Playstation certainly has more titles than Gamecube, gamecube has just as wide a variety of genres available as playstation, it just has differing amounts of games in those genre's. Every genre you've listed, and a few you skipped over, exist for gamecube. Some cross platform, some exclusive.
Speaking of the specific companies themselves, of course, titles developed and/or published by Nintendo do tend to have a broader spectrum than titles developed and/or published by Sony. Sony thrives primarily on 3rd parties. Nintendo has mostly depended on 1st parties because they did not have enough market share to garner truly strong 3rd party support.