I don't believe Revolution is really a major factor in the current stage of the game-- not because I'm trying to knock Nintendo, but because some of Revolutions's concepts are so radical that it is not easy to "predict" what will happen. Revolution could be the next major breakthrough in gaming, but it could also be widely rejected by customers. Because of the uncertainty, I think most of Nintendo's competitors-- while wary about what the console could do-- are now focusing on their own core strengths instead of worrying about reacting to what Nintendo does.
I think you hit the mark with that comment. The main reason everyone at both companies is saying Nintendo is not in direct competition with Microsoft is because no one's entirely sure what's going to happen with Ninty's big gamble. M$ can make some contingency plans in case it takes off, but really, with an established system out in the wild, there is not much they can do, and no reason to spend money on something that might be a colossal flop.
Nintendo, on the other hand, can't be too concerned with what M$ & Sony are doing. They're not just trying to sell us a new game system, they're trying to sell a new paradigm. If they want that to fly, they have to poor everything into it. The Virtual Console, WiFi Connect, everything they're doing is not to compete with Xbox & Playstation, it's to provide a complete experience they can sell.
This doesn't mean they aren't going to be in direct competition in the future (say by the end of this year), but right now, they pretty much have to operate independently of each other.
The awful truth is, if we were willing to wait a few months, we wouldn't be reading these stories and arguing about them, and they wouldn't generate traffic to the sites. I don't know about the rest of you, but I have nothing better to do at work (well, nothing I enjoy more) than reading gaming news. If I was at home, I'd actually be playing games.
These articles pop up because people actually care, and want to discuss it. If they didn't, this article wouldn't have over 100 comments.
You know, I did that once. Bought a game that was available on all three consoles for the Xbox cause it had better graphics, shorter load times and online play. It was an FPS. Last time I make that mistake.
As it turns out, as much as I hate load times, a lousy, stiff, horribly inaccurate controller is an even bigger annoyance. The 360 controller is leaps and fucking bounds above the original Xbox controller, but if the PS3 or Rev have better control yet, then I won't be getting my cross platform games on 360. Control beats graphics hands down.
Actually, it is worrying. The problem is, about 50% of the largest and most popular game developers are still Japanese developers, and Japanese developers do look at Japanese sales numbers. Short of an overwhelming majority of market share in another region (enough that they could afford to ignore the Japanese market entirely), no Japanese development studio is going to ignore sales numbers in Japan. If those companies decide not to make games for the system based on the sales in Japan, that will mean less games for the system overall, and therefore less sales in other regions, as the people who would have bought the system flock to Sony or Nintendo for the games they want.
So yes, Japan does matter to Microsoft, unless they can show developers that they can make significantly more money in the US & European regions.
Re:will it be open to amature developers?
on
Mario All Grown Up?
·
· Score: 1
The parent doesn't precisely understand how profit is determined in this industry.
While, strictly speaking, Nintendo does make a profit on each unit sold (IE, the manufacturing cost is less than the price they get selling it to retailers/consumers), for it actually to be considered a profit, they have to make enough revenue to cover the costs of R&D (for a console) or development (for a game). Once they've made back the money they spent, anything after that is profit.
No console (as far as I know) has ever made a profit in it's first quarter. Nintendo consoles generally make a profit faster because they sell they're consoles for less than it costs to manufacture, and it gets progressively cheaper to manufacture as time goes on.
Simple does not, in any way, mean the same thing as dumbed-down.
For one thing, the Rev controller is actually more complicated than a standard controller. By several orders of magnitude in fact. The only reason it's simpler is because human beings are trained from birth to understand a certain level of 3 dimensional interaction, whereas using an analog joystick and buttons is a non-natural learned behaviour.
Let me put it this way. Would you rather have a simple game like tetris, using a standard controller. Or a complex game like SOCOM, using the Rev controller? If you choose the first, then you're missing the point. The Rev controller can do anything a regular controller can do, and then some. The difference is that usage of the Rev controller is transparent, so the learning curve is in the game itself, and not in figuring out how to use the controller.
The new controller is not meant to help hardcore gamers. Hardcore gamers already have 20+ years exeperience in teaching themselves to use a "standard" gamepad. Everyone else, however, has been using their hands to manipulate obejcts in 3 dimensions their entire life (I'd assume hardcore gamers have been doing that as well) so this new control scheme will be more natural. And that is the actual point.
On the subject of Nintendogs, have you actually played it? I bought the game for my niece, her very first video game, and in helping her with it, it turns out it's a lot more complex than I'd expected. It's easy to use, but that doesn't necessarily translate into being easy to play. The first is a matter of control, the second is a matter of game design.
My suggestion to you, be an innovator. But a DS, let your friends try it out. I suggest Meteos to start, and Mario Kart for later. Convince at least 7 of them to buy a DS, then you can play an 8 player Mario Kart battle. That's been my tactic, it's worked on 3 of them so far, and 1 more is just waiting until he has the spare cash (recently bought a house so it may be a few months).
Speaking from personal experience, I don't know anyone under the age of 25 who owns a DS, but then, the only person I speak to on a regular basis under the age of 25 is my 3 year old niece, so I don't feel I'm up to judging what kids are doing these days.
DS has had wireless play since it was released. Super Mario DS, first game out for it, had some wireless minigame or something. These kiosks are to download data that is stored on the kiosk itself. At no point, when using the download kiosk, do you actually go on the internet. It's totally local wireless, the same as what is available in nearly every DS game, even the one's without WiFi play.
In fact, since Mario Kart DS was released in the US less than a month after it's Japan release (were they released on the same day, I don't remember), Japan has only had WiFi play for a few months as well, but they've had the Kiosks for about a year.
I understand what you're saying, but I think Nintendo isn't quite taking as drastic a route as you're thinking.
What Nintendo has always done, up to this point, is make games targetted at everyone, regardless of age, race or gender. And to an extent, this has worked for them.
I think (and this may just be totally in my head, and not in fact what Nintendo is doing, but the things they've been doing with the DS lead me to believe this) is that Nintendo is going to try targetting everyone as they have before, but instead of making a single game targetted at everyone, they will instead make multiple games, with different target audiences.
Again, with the DS for example. You have Mario Kart DS, a game that is not going to immediately sell to casual gamers. While it is a big sell for casual gamers once they pick it up, if it's not something they know about, and have played, they aren't going to pick it up. So Mario Kart DS is for the hardcore, fanboi market.
Nintendogs is aimed at an entirely different market. It's not even aimed at the casual market, because it requires a level of dedication. But it does appeal to a wide group of people, not all of whom are gamers.
You have the upcoming Tetris DS, which literally appeals to everyone. Even more, it's the ultimate casual game. You can play for 2 minutes, or for 5 hours. It can eat time like nobody's business, and you never feel like it was really wasted.
And then take Metroid Prime Hunters, an online FPS. This is dedicated to the young, hardcore, I am a l33t gamer crowd.
To a certain extent, Nintendo is dispensing with the "make one game for everybody" model, and going with the, "make games cheaper, so we can put out several different games targetted at different markets".
And I really think this will work out for them. Think of it this way. Hardcore gamers (and especially fanbois) are used to waiting a year or two between their hardcore gaming fix in a particular franchise. In the time it takes for Nintendo to make one Zelda, they can make 20-30 Tetris', or Nintendogs' or Electroplankton's, and probably make all of them combined for less money than it costs them to make Zelda.
Not only will each of those 20-30 titles sell to the markets they're targetted at, but the hardcore gamer, while waiting for his Mario, or Zelda or Metroid Prime Hunters, will also pick up a few of those games because they look interesting (and we need something to tide us over for all the waiting).
If you think about it, this is the model that has made the playstation so popular. The playstations gets hundreds more titles than any other system, and while a good 70% of them are total crap (a higher percentage than on any other console), there are still enough good ones to convince people to buy the system. One good game of God of War will totally wipe from your mind the 5 games that got a score of 2 out of 10 on gamerankings.
Nintendo's greatest strength has always been their first party titles. With this strategy, they can essentially emulate the PS2's success in-house. What's more, they can use it to reach a wider audience, which means they sell more consoles. And if they sell more consoles, more 3rd parties will make games for their system, which will sell even more consoles, and well, I'm sure you can figure it out from there.
It's a clever ploy, but it remains to be seen if it will work out the way they're hoping.
I'm at work, so no links, but everything in the following comment is real.
The response to your question depends on what exactly do you think are games that should be targeted at women?
It's a "well-known fact" that women like puzzle games, and Tetris has always been popular with everyone, regardless of age, race or gender. So they can market Tetris DS.
Or, perhaps they can market Cooking Mama (also on the DS) a cooking game. Except, wait, that would be sexist.
I don't know. How about Kirby Canvas Curse. I mean, come on, it's a game where you draw rainbows. That's not just a major mechanic in the game, it is the mechanic of the game. Come on, chicks like rainbows right?
Of course, you could market Pokemon Blue/Teal/Peridot/Burnt Sienna...I mean, assuming they avoid shows with a high, right wing Christian audience, because I have it on good authority that Pokemon are the spawn of Satan (no, really, I was at Wal-Mart, helping a lady choose a portable gaming system for their little boy, and she assured me, and my Jewish friend, that pokemon were the work of the devil...and if you can't trust a random person in Wal-Mart about the ultimate nature of evil, who can you trust?).
I think Nintendo has the right idea. It's not so much a matter of what games you market, but how you market them. A simple game like Animal Crossing can get the sci fi geek, the MMO item collector, the Sims fanatic, the Bejeweled freak, and the kid who just wants a game to play...but it all depends on how you present it to them. It helps to present it on a show they actually watch, as opposed to on channels they only turn to when absolutely forced. If you blather about how great something is on ESPN, half the women will immediately associate it with the natural disgust they feel for that channel. If, on the other hand, you say the exact same thing on Lifetime, women will be more inclined to take an interest in it, just because a) they associate it with something they enjoy now and b) they feel like you actually took the time to display an interest in what they want (even if you actually didn't).
Marketing is a strange beast, and altogether depends less on what you're selling and more on how you sell it.
I would so prefer a new Captain N show, to coincide with the release of the Revolution. What's more, it should be done completely using CG animation as opposed to standard animation. Also, it should be done by Gonzo, cause they have some of the cleanest animation I have ever seen. Either them or the guys who did Reboot (I don't remember the name of the studio).
Re:Nintendo is in trouble with the Revolution
on
Nintendo's New Look
·
· Score: 1
The important thing to remember is that Digital does not mean High Definition. At the very begininning of that article it says, and I quote, "The FCC has notified US television broadcasters that the standard for transmitting TV over-the-air shall change from analog to digital. The three main types of digital TV are Standard Definition ("good", offering the same resolution as the traditional analog system), Enhanced Definition ("better"), and High Definition ("best")."
What this means is, it is cheaper to buy a digital tuner (currently running about $50, prices will lower quickly) or just to get cable and a digital box (averaging about $50 a month) rather than a new tv. Some people will buy HDTVs, most will not. Also, the analog shutdown date was pushed back to 2009, because current adoption rates of digital TVs, as well as the necessary digital broadcast equipment, is too slow to meet the 2007 date. What that means is, the Rev will be a third of the way through it's lifespan before that becomes an issue, and even then, people are more likely to get a EDTV which is less than $200 over an HDTV which, even a CRT, is still between $200-$600.
Also, if customers do get cable tv, the cable companies can, if they choose, convert the digital signals to analog (which is really just silly, but they'll do it if it means more customers) and encourage people to get cable instead of buying a new tv.
Re:Nintendo is in trouble with the Revolution
on
Nintendo's New Look
·
· Score: 1
Current penetration of HDTV in the US is less than 10%. Current penetration in markets other than the US is less than 1%. Even assuming you can get an HDTV for less than $200 (which you can, but only up to 480p, for a tv that supports resolutions greater than 480p you're still looking at an average of $400), market penetration is not going to increase to greater than 50% in the US within the next 5 years. I work for a cable company, it's taking us forever to get customers to convert from analog to digital service, HDTV isn't going to be any easier. And this is with the government push behind it. Nitnendo is an international company, they're going to try to provide an equal experience to all markets.
I don't hang out in schoolyards, so I honestly don't know what kids are carrying around. Except for conventions, I have never, in the entire time the two systems have been out, seen anyone I don't know with either a PSP or a DS out in public. Which would lead one to believe no one is buying them. I live in Nashville, TN, a fairly large city, so I know people have them. Visual evidence is not enough to prove a point, that is why people use sales numbers, and the sales numbers indicate that in Japan, the DS is outselling the PSP 3 to 1, in Europe it's outselling the PSP 1.5 to 1, and I don't have any recent numbers for the US, so I will just assume the US sales are equal. That still puts the worldwide sales of the DS far ahead of the PSP. And before you say, "Well that doesn't mean anything," sales numbers are what developers look at when determining what systems to develop for. That and attach ratio, and I've yet to find any reliable numbers for attach ratio on games for either system.
Downloadable games and online play have existed for more than 20 years, but they're fairly new on a dedicated home gaming console. Xbox Live & Arcade are truly wonderful, I'll give you that, but if that's the only selling point for the system, and I can get those two things on a system at 1/2 the price (assuming a $200 pricetag on the Rev, it may be $250, and remember, you can't use Xbox Live Arcade unless you have the harddrive, meaning you have to get the $400 premium 360 system, or the $300 core system plus the harddrive which runs some exorbitant figure of which I'm unaware since I plan to just get the Premium Bundle) then the only determining factor is the games. I have an Xbox, a PS2 and a GC. I have just under 50 PS2 games. I have a little over 40 GC games. I have very nearly 10 Xbox games. that should tell you something about the games I prefer. Whatever else you say about the DS, it does have a large number of fun, interesting titles, and people are buying them in droves. Can Nintendo guarantee that kind of software support for the Revolution? No. Are they going to try? Yes.
And actually, Revolution Report is a very good site. They don't knock what Sony & Microsoft have done right, and even point out the lessons Nintendo should learn from them. And they have no problem lambasting Nintendo when they make a mistake. You should visit a site before disparaging it. Just because it focuses on only one category doesn't mean the content creators of the site are unreasonably biased.
Re:Nintendo is in trouble with the Revolution
on
Nintendo's New Look
·
· Score: 1
Now, that is not the main selling point of the Revolution. It's a point Nintendo repeatedly brings up, but that's only because in the past the FPS genre has been seen as one of their weaknesses (although arguably the two best console FPS' ever, Goldeneye and Perfect Dark, were released for the n64, before those two games console FPS' sales were always mediocre at best).
The main selling point of the Revolution controller is that it is inherently more intuitive, and therefore a more transparent method of control.
I don't entirely agree with you, but I did want to point out that the Japanese steal words just as freely as Americans do. It's one thing the two languages, or more appropriately, the two cultures, have in common. We're not so hung up on the cultural implications of "corrupting" our language as, say, the French are, so we borrow/steal words whenever we lack one to describe something. And if that doesn't work, we just make something up. That is how slang is created, and how it eventually makes itself a part of our language. I'm sure in a good 5 years or so, the word "blog" will be considered an actual word, no matter how evil it is.
Interestingly enough, Chrono Trigger was made by both Square and Enix. It was their first collaboration long before Square bought out Enix.
Also, not sure if you ever played or liked the Dragon Warrior series, but Dragon Quest VIII is quite a fun game. Kingdom Hearts is okay, but hasn't held my attention. Star Ocean 3 (another Enix game, from the Tri-Ace division in fact) was a travesty. Star Ocean 2 for the PS1 was much better. And I've been told Front Mission 4 is good, but I'm not all that much for giant robots, so I haven't tried it.
Yes, the n64 was horrendous for RPGs. That was the system's primary failure, once Square moved Final Fantasy to PS1, and with Enix not making many new games, everyone else moved to PS1 so the n64 never got any RPGs. If you're going to judge a system on that, then yes I can see your point. But I remember months spent playing Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, Mario Party, Super Smash Bros, F-Zero X, Jet Force Gemini and so many other games with friends. Though the games tended to be less in-depth, they made up for it in fun factor. No game released for the original playstation ever took more than maybe a couple weeks of my time. n64 games were played months at a time because they were flat out better in general.
Even in this generation, I've gotten more play time out of my GCN games even though I have more PS2 games. There are a few games on PS2 that have drawn months away from me (Dynasty Warriors, Timesplitters, Katamari Damacy) and of course RPGs take a couple of weeks at a time out of my life. I wouldn't give up those games, but Super Monkey Ball on the GC has probably garnered more playtime than any game I have on the PS2.
So while they have different experiences available, I think Nintendo's games are just as good as Sony's, they're just very different.
As for Zelda, I happen to think Ocarina of time was one of the best games ever, but if you object to 3d games, then I can understand why you'd rate Link to the Past better. Might I recommend a GBA if you're fond of 2d games? Some of the best 2d games ever created were created for the GBA or the original Gameboy. The recent Zelda: Minish Cap is one of the highest rated Zelda games ever, and it's quite enjoyable. I don't think I'd rate it higher than Link to the Past, but it's better than the first one (and hey!, I liked Zelda 2).
Gunstar Super Heroes, the various Castlevania's, Advance Wars (if you like turn based strategy), Golden Sun, rereleases of every Dragon Warrior & Final Fantasy from 1-4 and 1-6 respectively (except three which is being released in the US for the first time on the DS). I honestly couldn't tell you what all great games are on the GBA, there are more GBA games released in any given month than there are for all 3 home consoles combined. A lot of them are simple or crappy, but a good number of them are AAA games, and with the DS & PSP taking the spotlight, you can get them cheap used these days.
Including, if you're interested, abundant remakes of Atari, Intellivision, Colecovision & Commodore 64 games (although no one has bothered to release a remake/port of Archon for the GBA...cause they hate me and wish no joy in my life).
Yeeeeaaaaahhh, I don't exactly consider the GBM part of the gameboy line so much as a novelty. I personally think the whole thing is ridiculous, but I can understand why Nintendo is making money off of it. The original GBA is just perfect for my hands, I don't need anything smaller. The next console in the gameboy line, whatever it ends up being, is probably going to be more in line with the DS or GBASP in shape and size than the micro, and therefore will probably be backwards compatible.
Well, okay, I have to give you that. RPGs, for the most part, are fundamentally easy. It's a design flaw of the genre. To make an enemy actually difficult, they pretty much have to cheat. One of the few RPGs I remember where the boss was hard pretty much no matter what level you were was Chrono Trigger, and that's because the bits could protect/heal him and he could revive the bits. The AI was pretty good, though, so you couldn't use a simple pattern to beat him, actually had to outthink him.
Mario & Luigi is slightly different, because it uses a battle system much like Paper Mario, where sequences of button presses affect damage, so just leveling up isn't enough to beat it. Also it has some pretty complex puzzles utilizing the 4 characters and their abilities. It is actually one of the better RPGs in gameplay. The story isn't all that great as far as plot is concerned, but the actual writing is top notch, with a lot of humor and fun to it.
I'm not sure which Settlers game you're talking about, so I can't compare it to Animal Crossing. When you say Settlers I think Settlers of Catan, but I doubt that's right. Animal Crossing lets you set your own goals, but once you reach those goals, interest does tend to flag until you find another goal to set. The most common goal is to fill up the catalog (ie collect all the furniture, fish, bugs, paintings and whatnot). With over 3000 items to collect, and being able to only add a few each day, if that's your goal, it's going to take you a while, and you'll need to check everyday in case a new item shows up. Plus you'll want to check periodically to make sure weeds aren't overgrowing your town, and that bugs haven't invaded your house, and tha tall the flowers didn't die and crap, I should probably check my town again.
I prefer TBS to RTS as well. I loved Final Fantasy Tactics (the original on PS1, not the GBA sequel). Advance Wars is very different, and just as good. If you complain that the problem of RPGs is that they're easy after you level, you'll like Advance Wars. Sure you may still spend a lot of time leveling your COs, but mostly that's just so you can make the missions possible (specifically, there was one mission where I had to level a CO I rarely used to level 4, because she has an ability that stops your opponent from utterly destroying all your units on turn 4). I suppose the scenario might have been possible without leveling, but I couldn't figure out another way to beat it. I was pretty proud of myself for even coming up with that strategy. I've had the game since the weekend after it came out and I'm still only halfway through the hard campaign (of course, I don't play it constantly, I keep getting interrupted by interesting, and shorter, new releases I just have to play).
In case you can't tell by my incessant rambling, I'm a really big fan of Advance Wars. The only thing it's missing is internet play.
The thing is, Nintendo hasn't completely stopped production on the original GBA, it's still selling, it shows up on the Japanese sales charts every week. While they mgiht discontinue the original DS, there's still a fairly good chance they won't, at least not for the first year or so, so you can still trade yours in for the original model.
The original GBA did not have a backlight because it used 2AA batteries. Nintendo could not justify having a lighted screen when it would reduce battery life to less than half, and people still had to pay to buy batteries. With the GBASP they introduced a rechargable L-Ion battery much like cellphones used, meaning not only increased battery life, but not having to repeatedly buy batteries, so they could afford to include a front-lit screen. It wasn't until the DS and GBM that they actually went with a backlit screen.
The second reason is that, in many cases, when they originally release the hardware, they are releasing it at the best price possible. If they were to make the smaller, prettier version first, they'd be looking at a 20%-30% increase in price. One year and uncountable millions of dollars in profits later, they can make the new, smaller version of the system, and charge the exact same for it they charged when they released the original, because it's cheaper for them to make it now.
This has been going on in the pc business for years, it's almost constant. Video cards are a prime example. Why do you think a handheld would be that different.
All the great games you grew up playing have been rereleased for the Gameboy and GBA. This is assuming you grew up playing Nintendo games. Every single Donkey Kong, every single Donkey Kong Country, Zelda 1 & 2, and every single Mario Bros game has been rereleased for the GBA.
The reason I got a DS before a PSP (aside from the fact it came out first) was because, while there is no game on the PSP that couldn't be done on the DS, there are several games on the DS that would be flat out impossible on a PSP. Sure, it's unlikely the DS will ever get GTA:LCS, but I'm not fond of the GTA games, and games like Lumines, MGS:Acid and even Wipeout Pure can just as easily be made on the DS, they just won't be as graphically impressive.
Speaking of graphically impressive. We're talking about graphics better than what the n64 could be put out, a system which was graphically superior to the original Playstation. So while I can accept your complaint that the graphics look like crap in comparison to the PSP, how does that matter when you're waxing poetic about when Nintendo used to be a good company. You know, when their graphics were 8-bit or 16-bit.
Yes, the PSP has a few good games. The DS has several good games, and a few great games. it also has a wider variety of games, with more coming out. As far as emulators go, I was running emulators on my GBA, and I'm running them on my DS. Though I haven't tried it, they even have ScummVM emulators that make use of the touchscreen.
So the DS can't play music or movies, but I can get a decent music player, or even an IPod if I want to do that, and it will do it better than the PSP could hope to. Whatever Sony wants it to be, the PSP is a gaming machine, it doesn't do anything else well enough to be considered in those categories (and I refuse to buy UMD movies for the same reason I never bought a GBM, it's just silly). And as a gaming machine it's disappointing when compared to it's nearest competition. If the DS did not exist people would probably be quite happy with the PSP. But then, if the Playstation had never existed, people would still be talking about how wonderful the n64 was (well, more people would, some of the most fun I've had in my life was had with the n64).
Slashdot Mirror
I think you hit the mark with that comment. The main reason everyone at both companies is saying Nintendo is not in direct competition with Microsoft is because no one's entirely sure what's going to happen with Ninty's big gamble. M$ can make some contingency plans in case it takes off, but really, with an established system out in the wild, there is not much they can do, and no reason to spend money on something that might be a colossal flop.
Nintendo, on the other hand, can't be too concerned with what M$ & Sony are doing. They're not just trying to sell us a new game system, they're trying to sell a new paradigm. If they want that to fly, they have to poor everything into it. The Virtual Console, WiFi Connect, everything they're doing is not to compete with Xbox & Playstation, it's to provide a complete experience they can sell.
This doesn't mean they aren't going to be in direct competition in the future (say by the end of this year), but right now, they pretty much have to operate independently of each other.
These articles pop up because people actually care, and want to discuss it. If they didn't, this article wouldn't have over 100 comments.
As it turns out, as much as I hate load times, a lousy, stiff, horribly inaccurate controller is an even bigger annoyance. The 360 controller is leaps and fucking bounds above the original Xbox controller, but if the PS3 or Rev have better control yet, then I won't be getting my cross platform games on 360. Control beats graphics hands down.
So yes, Japan does matter to Microsoft, unless they can show developers that they can make significantly more money in the US & European regions.
While, strictly speaking, Nintendo does make a profit on each unit sold (IE, the manufacturing cost is less than the price they get selling it to retailers/consumers), for it actually to be considered a profit, they have to make enough revenue to cover the costs of R&D (for a console) or development (for a game). Once they've made back the money they spent, anything after that is profit.
No console (as far as I know) has ever made a profit in it's first quarter. Nintendo consoles generally make a profit faster because they sell they're consoles for less than it costs to manufacture, and it gets progressively cheaper to manufacture as time goes on.
Simple does not, in any way, mean the same thing as dumbed-down.
For one thing, the Rev controller is actually more complicated than a standard controller. By several orders of magnitude in fact. The only reason it's simpler is because human beings are trained from birth to understand a certain level of 3 dimensional interaction, whereas using an analog joystick and buttons is a non-natural learned behaviour.
Let me put it this way. Would you rather have a simple game like tetris, using a standard controller. Or a complex game like SOCOM, using the Rev controller? If you choose the first, then you're missing the point. The Rev controller can do anything a regular controller can do, and then some. The difference is that usage of the Rev controller is transparent, so the learning curve is in the game itself, and not in figuring out how to use the controller.
The new controller is not meant to help hardcore gamers. Hardcore gamers already have 20+ years exeperience in teaching themselves to use a "standard" gamepad. Everyone else, however, has been using their hands to manipulate obejcts in 3 dimensions their entire life (I'd assume hardcore gamers have been doing that as well) so this new control scheme will be more natural. And that is the actual point.
On the subject of Nintendogs, have you actually played it? I bought the game for my niece, her very first video game, and in helping her with it, it turns out it's a lot more complex than I'd expected. It's easy to use, but that doesn't necessarily translate into being easy to play. The first is a matter of control, the second is a matter of game design.
Speaking from personal experience, I don't know anyone under the age of 25 who owns a DS, but then, the only person I speak to on a regular basis under the age of 25 is my 3 year old niece, so I don't feel I'm up to judging what kids are doing these days.
DS has had wireless play since it was released. Super Mario DS, first game out for it, had some wireless minigame or something. These kiosks are to download data that is stored on the kiosk itself. At no point, when using the download kiosk, do you actually go on the internet. It's totally local wireless, the same as what is available in nearly every DS game, even the one's without WiFi play.
In fact, since Mario Kart DS was released in the US less than a month after it's Japan release (were they released on the same day, I don't remember), Japan has only had WiFi play for a few months as well, but they've had the Kiosks for about a year.
Yamauchi. Yamauchi was the former president of Nintendo. Iwata is the current president.
What Nintendo has always done, up to this point, is make games targetted at everyone, regardless of age, race or gender. And to an extent, this has worked for them.
I think (and this may just be totally in my head, and not in fact what Nintendo is doing, but the things they've been doing with the DS lead me to believe this) is that Nintendo is going to try targetting everyone as they have before, but instead of making a single game targetted at everyone, they will instead make multiple games, with different target audiences.
Again, with the DS for example. You have Mario Kart DS, a game that is not going to immediately sell to casual gamers. While it is a big sell for casual gamers once they pick it up, if it's not something they know about, and have played, they aren't going to pick it up. So Mario Kart DS is for the hardcore, fanboi market.
Nintendogs is aimed at an entirely different market. It's not even aimed at the casual market, because it requires a level of dedication. But it does appeal to a wide group of people, not all of whom are gamers.
You have the upcoming Tetris DS, which literally appeals to everyone. Even more, it's the ultimate casual game. You can play for 2 minutes, or for 5 hours. It can eat time like nobody's business, and you never feel like it was really wasted.
And then take Metroid Prime Hunters, an online FPS. This is dedicated to the young, hardcore, I am a l33t gamer crowd.
To a certain extent, Nintendo is dispensing with the "make one game for everybody" model, and going with the, "make games cheaper, so we can put out several different games targetted at different markets".
And I really think this will work out for them. Think of it this way. Hardcore gamers (and especially fanbois) are used to waiting a year or two between their hardcore gaming fix in a particular franchise. In the time it takes for Nintendo to make one Zelda, they can make 20-30 Tetris', or Nintendogs' or Electroplankton's, and probably make all of them combined for less money than it costs them to make Zelda.
Not only will each of those 20-30 titles sell to the markets they're targetted at, but the hardcore gamer, while waiting for his Mario, or Zelda or Metroid Prime Hunters, will also pick up a few of those games because they look interesting (and we need something to tide us over for all the waiting).
If you think about it, this is the model that has made the playstation so popular. The playstations gets hundreds more titles than any other system, and while a good 70% of them are total crap (a higher percentage than on any other console), there are still enough good ones to convince people to buy the system. One good game of God of War will totally wipe from your mind the 5 games that got a score of 2 out of 10 on gamerankings.
Nintendo's greatest strength has always been their first party titles. With this strategy, they can essentially emulate the PS2's success in-house. What's more, they can use it to reach a wider audience, which means they sell more consoles. And if they sell more consoles, more 3rd parties will make games for their system, which will sell even more consoles, and well, I'm sure you can figure it out from there.
It's a clever ploy, but it remains to be seen if it will work out the way they're hoping.
That's okay. The day Nintendo is able to get me sex is the day mankind has reached the pinnacle of technology.
The response to your question depends on what exactly do you think are games that should be targeted at women?
It's a "well-known fact" that women like puzzle games, and Tetris has always been popular with everyone, regardless of age, race or gender. So they can market Tetris DS.
Or, perhaps they can market Cooking Mama (also on the DS) a cooking game. Except, wait, that would be sexist.
I don't know. How about Kirby Canvas Curse. I mean, come on, it's a game where you draw rainbows. That's not just a major mechanic in the game, it is the mechanic of the game. Come on, chicks like rainbows right?
Of course, you could market Pokemon Blue/Teal/Peridot/Burnt Sienna...I mean, assuming they avoid shows with a high, right wing Christian audience, because I have it on good authority that Pokemon are the spawn of Satan (no, really, I was at Wal-Mart, helping a lady choose a portable gaming system for their little boy, and she assured me, and my Jewish friend, that pokemon were the work of the devil...and if you can't trust a random person in Wal-Mart about the ultimate nature of evil, who can you trust?).
I think Nintendo has the right idea. It's not so much a matter of what games you market, but how you market them. A simple game like Animal Crossing can get the sci fi geek, the MMO item collector, the Sims fanatic, the Bejeweled freak, and the kid who just wants a game to play...but it all depends on how you present it to them. It helps to present it on a show they actually watch, as opposed to on channels they only turn to when absolutely forced. If you blather about how great something is on ESPN, half the women will immediately associate it with the natural disgust they feel for that channel. If, on the other hand, you say the exact same thing on Lifetime, women will be more inclined to take an interest in it, just because a) they associate it with something they enjoy now and b) they feel like you actually took the time to display an interest in what they want (even if you actually didn't).
Marketing is a strange beast, and altogether depends less on what you're selling and more on how you sell it.
I would so prefer a new Captain N show, to coincide with the release of the Revolution. What's more, it should be done completely using CG animation as opposed to standard animation. Also, it should be done by Gonzo, cause they have some of the cleanest animation I have ever seen. Either them or the guys who did Reboot (I don't remember the name of the studio).
I always thought that was intentional.
What this means is, it is cheaper to buy a digital tuner (currently running about $50, prices will lower quickly) or just to get cable and a digital box (averaging about $50 a month) rather than a new tv. Some people will buy HDTVs, most will not. Also, the analog shutdown date was pushed back to 2009, because current adoption rates of digital TVs, as well as the necessary digital broadcast equipment, is too slow to meet the 2007 date. What that means is, the Rev will be a third of the way through it's lifespan before that becomes an issue, and even then, people are more likely to get a EDTV which is less than $200 over an HDTV which, even a CRT, is still between $200-$600.
Also, if customers do get cable tv, the cable companies can, if they choose, convert the digital signals to analog (which is really just silly, but they'll do it if it means more customers) and encourage people to get cable instead of buying a new tv.
I don't hang out in schoolyards, so I honestly don't know what kids are carrying around. Except for conventions, I have never, in the entire time the two systems have been out, seen anyone I don't know with either a PSP or a DS out in public. Which would lead one to believe no one is buying them. I live in Nashville, TN, a fairly large city, so I know people have them. Visual evidence is not enough to prove a point, that is why people use sales numbers, and the sales numbers indicate that in Japan, the DS is outselling the PSP 3 to 1, in Europe it's outselling the PSP 1.5 to 1, and I don't have any recent numbers for the US, so I will just assume the US sales are equal. That still puts the worldwide sales of the DS far ahead of the PSP. And before you say, "Well that doesn't mean anything," sales numbers are what developers look at when determining what systems to develop for. That and attach ratio, and I've yet to find any reliable numbers for attach ratio on games for either system.
Downloadable games and online play have existed for more than 20 years, but they're fairly new on a dedicated home gaming console. Xbox Live & Arcade are truly wonderful, I'll give you that, but if that's the only selling point for the system, and I can get those two things on a system at 1/2 the price (assuming a $200 pricetag on the Rev, it may be $250, and remember, you can't use Xbox Live Arcade unless you have the harddrive, meaning you have to get the $400 premium 360 system, or the $300 core system plus the harddrive which runs some exorbitant figure of which I'm unaware since I plan to just get the Premium Bundle) then the only determining factor is the games. I have an Xbox, a PS2 and a GC. I have just under 50 PS2 games. I have a little over 40 GC games. I have very nearly 10 Xbox games. that should tell you something about the games I prefer. Whatever else you say about the DS, it does have a large number of fun, interesting titles, and people are buying them in droves. Can Nintendo guarantee that kind of software support for the Revolution? No. Are they going to try? Yes.
And actually, Revolution Report is a very good site. They don't knock what Sony & Microsoft have done right, and even point out the lessons Nintendo should learn from them. And they have no problem lambasting Nintendo when they make a mistake. You should visit a site before disparaging it. Just because it focuses on only one category doesn't mean the content creators of the site are unreasonably biased.
The main selling point of the Revolution controller is that it is inherently more intuitive, and therefore a more transparent method of control.
I don't entirely agree with you, but I did want to point out that the Japanese steal words just as freely as Americans do. It's one thing the two languages, or more appropriately, the two cultures, have in common. We're not so hung up on the cultural implications of "corrupting" our language as, say, the French are, so we borrow/steal words whenever we lack one to describe something. And if that doesn't work, we just make something up. That is how slang is created, and how it eventually makes itself a part of our language. I'm sure in a good 5 years or so, the word "blog" will be considered an actual word, no matter how evil it is.
Also, not sure if you ever played or liked the Dragon Warrior series, but Dragon Quest VIII is quite a fun game. Kingdom Hearts is okay, but hasn't held my attention. Star Ocean 3 (another Enix game, from the Tri-Ace division in fact) was a travesty. Star Ocean 2 for the PS1 was much better. And I've been told Front Mission 4 is good, but I'm not all that much for giant robots, so I haven't tried it.
Even in this generation, I've gotten more play time out of my GCN games even though I have more PS2 games. There are a few games on PS2 that have drawn months away from me (Dynasty Warriors, Timesplitters, Katamari Damacy) and of course RPGs take a couple of weeks at a time out of my life. I wouldn't give up those games, but Super Monkey Ball on the GC has probably garnered more playtime than any game I have on the PS2.
So while they have different experiences available, I think Nintendo's games are just as good as Sony's, they're just very different.
As for Zelda, I happen to think Ocarina of time was one of the best games ever, but if you object to 3d games, then I can understand why you'd rate Link to the Past better. Might I recommend a GBA if you're fond of 2d games? Some of the best 2d games ever created were created for the GBA or the original Gameboy. The recent Zelda: Minish Cap is one of the highest rated Zelda games ever, and it's quite enjoyable. I don't think I'd rate it higher than Link to the Past, but it's better than the first one (and hey!, I liked Zelda 2).
Gunstar Super Heroes, the various Castlevania's, Advance Wars (if you like turn based strategy), Golden Sun, rereleases of every Dragon Warrior & Final Fantasy from 1-4 and 1-6 respectively (except three which is being released in the US for the first time on the DS). I honestly couldn't tell you what all great games are on the GBA, there are more GBA games released in any given month than there are for all 3 home consoles combined. A lot of them are simple or crappy, but a good number of them are AAA games, and with the DS & PSP taking the spotlight, you can get them cheap used these days.
Including, if you're interested, abundant remakes of Atari, Intellivision, Colecovision & Commodore 64 games (although no one has bothered to release a remake/port of Archon for the GBA...cause they hate me and wish no joy in my life).
But I could be wrong.
Mario & Luigi is slightly different, because it uses a battle system much like Paper Mario, where sequences of button presses affect damage, so just leveling up isn't enough to beat it. Also it has some pretty complex puzzles utilizing the 4 characters and their abilities. It is actually one of the better RPGs in gameplay. The story isn't all that great as far as plot is concerned, but the actual writing is top notch, with a lot of humor and fun to it.
I'm not sure which Settlers game you're talking about, so I can't compare it to Animal Crossing. When you say Settlers I think Settlers of Catan, but I doubt that's right. Animal Crossing lets you set your own goals, but once you reach those goals, interest does tend to flag until you find another goal to set. The most common goal is to fill up the catalog (ie collect all the furniture, fish, bugs, paintings and whatnot). With over 3000 items to collect, and being able to only add a few each day, if that's your goal, it's going to take you a while, and you'll need to check everyday in case a new item shows up. Plus you'll want to check periodically to make sure weeds aren't overgrowing your town, and that bugs haven't invaded your house, and tha tall the flowers didn't die and crap, I should probably check my town again.
I prefer TBS to RTS as well. I loved Final Fantasy Tactics (the original on PS1, not the GBA sequel). Advance Wars is very different, and just as good. If you complain that the problem of RPGs is that they're easy after you level, you'll like Advance Wars. Sure you may still spend a lot of time leveling your COs, but mostly that's just so you can make the missions possible (specifically, there was one mission where I had to level a CO I rarely used to level 4, because she has an ability that stops your opponent from utterly destroying all your units on turn 4). I suppose the scenario might have been possible without leveling, but I couldn't figure out another way to beat it. I was pretty proud of myself for even coming up with that strategy. I've had the game since the weekend after it came out and I'm still only halfway through the hard campaign (of course, I don't play it constantly, I keep getting interrupted by interesting, and shorter, new releases I just have to play).
In case you can't tell by my incessant rambling, I'm a really big fan of Advance Wars. The only thing it's missing is internet play.
The thing is, Nintendo hasn't completely stopped production on the original GBA, it's still selling, it shows up on the Japanese sales charts every week. While they mgiht discontinue the original DS, there's still a fairly good chance they won't, at least not for the first year or so, so you can still trade yours in for the original model.
The original GBA did not have a backlight because it used 2AA batteries. Nintendo could not justify having a lighted screen when it would reduce battery life to less than half, and people still had to pay to buy batteries. With the GBASP they introduced a rechargable L-Ion battery much like cellphones used, meaning not only increased battery life, but not having to repeatedly buy batteries, so they could afford to include a front-lit screen. It wasn't until the DS and GBM that they actually went with a backlit screen.
The second reason is that, in many cases, when they originally release the hardware, they are releasing it at the best price possible. If they were to make the smaller, prettier version first, they'd be looking at a 20%-30% increase in price. One year and uncountable millions of dollars in profits later, they can make the new, smaller version of the system, and charge the exact same for it they charged when they released the original, because it's cheaper for them to make it now.
This has been going on in the pc business for years, it's almost constant. Video cards are a prime example. Why do you think a handheld would be that different.
The reason I got a DS before a PSP (aside from the fact it came out first) was because, while there is no game on the PSP that couldn't be done on the DS, there are several games on the DS that would be flat out impossible on a PSP. Sure, it's unlikely the DS will ever get GTA:LCS, but I'm not fond of the GTA games, and games like Lumines, MGS:Acid and even Wipeout Pure can just as easily be made on the DS, they just won't be as graphically impressive.
Speaking of graphically impressive. We're talking about graphics better than what the n64 could be put out, a system which was graphically superior to the original Playstation. So while I can accept your complaint that the graphics look like crap in comparison to the PSP, how does that matter when you're waxing poetic about when Nintendo used to be a good company. You know, when their graphics were 8-bit or 16-bit.
Yes, the PSP has a few good games. The DS has several good games, and a few great games. it also has a wider variety of games, with more coming out. As far as emulators go, I was running emulators on my GBA, and I'm running them on my DS. Though I haven't tried it, they even have ScummVM emulators that make use of the touchscreen.
So the DS can't play music or movies, but I can get a decent music player, or even an IPod if I want to do that, and it will do it better than the PSP could hope to. Whatever Sony wants it to be, the PSP is a gaming machine, it doesn't do anything else well enough to be considered in those categories (and I refuse to buy UMD movies for the same reason I never bought a GBM, it's just silly). And as a gaming machine it's disappointing when compared to it's nearest competition. If the DS did not exist people would probably be quite happy with the PSP. But then, if the Playstation had never existed, people would still be talking about how wonderful the n64 was (well, more people would, some of the most fun I've had in my life was had with the n64).