(You could not change the games on the first generation of consoles)
Pong (and all its clones including Ninendo's "Light Tennis") Break-Out (a Pong spin-off!)
Most consoles revolved around Pong this generation. At the latter end of this console cycle, more creativity was being put in the games with some companies putting out racing and puzzle games (as appeared in Japan).
-Second Generation-
These are the first consoles that could use cartridges. It took a while for the public to realize the machine could play more than one game!
Atari 2600 and the Channel F launched near the same time. But with the public bored of Pong, Channel F eventually exited the market deciding that the public had enough of 'video games'. (Channel F's games were awful anyway). This gave the market entirely to Atari 2600 which began to surge when the home version of Space Invaders came out. Newcomers such as Intellivision entered the market. Colecovision, a late newcomer to the market, bundled its console with a sweet exclusive deal with Nintendo's Donkey Kong. Colecovision also somehow legally won a court case to play all of Atari 2600's hundred games as well on its machine.
With the meteoric profits (Atari, at the time, was the fastest money making business in American history), many 'get-rich-quick' schemers came in who had no business making games (General Oats and Colgate for example). Atari hurt itself by putting out bad games such as E.T. and a poor port of Pac-Man. The market was flooded by games in 1983. With the rise of personal computers and games like Custer's Revenge and Death Race getting bad press, the console market collapsed. Retailers wouldn't even stock game consoles.
-Third Generation-
-NES -Master System -Atari console (dead anyway)
Nintendo's Famicom takes over Japan and is re-christened as the 'NES' for America. Nintendo puts in a toy robot and calls it the 'Entertainment System' to convince retailers that it wasn't exactly one of those hated 'video game consoles'. NES sales kept growing and growing with 90% market share. Sega's Master System had whatever was left (not much!).
Nintendo created lock-out chips and draconian licensing deals to avoid the fate of Atari. Third parties were looking for a console not as draconian as Ninetndo's.
The Gameboy is included in this generation.
-Fourth Generation-
-Sega Megadrive -Super Nintendo -NEC's PC-Engine (Turbo-graphix 16)
Sega, humiliated with the Master System's poor performance, stepped up with the Megadrive (Genesis in America). Trip Hawkins of Electronic Arts, annoyed that he missed the NES bandwagon, wanted to be the first third party on the Genesis. However, when Sega tried to put EA under a Nintendo style licensing deal, Hawkins told Sega that EA had reverse engineered the Genesis. They were going to make games for their system whether Sega liked it or not. So EA dictated the terms of their licensing agreement. Afterword, Sega quickly put in lockout codes into future Genesis/Megadrive consoles. Third parties, anxious to leave Nintendo, came but were disapointed that Sega wanted to BECOME Nintendo.
Nintendo took Japan, Sega took Europe, while both were tied in America. Sega introduced some extremely aggressive and effective marketing but Sega lost its momentum of putting out games. Nintendo stepped up with reclaiming third parties and put out hot games such as Super Metroid and Donkey Kong Country to have the SNES outsell Genesis in America again.
The PC-Engine from the giant computer maker NEC (NEC's research and development at that time exceeded the ENTIRE companies of Nintendo and Sega) came in second place in Japan and somewhat flopped in America. Nintendo and Sega's fear was that NEC could easily become a vertical monopoly. NEC owned their own manufacturing plants and chip R&D. You just cannot compete with a vertical monopoly. NEC would eventually exit the console market.
Sega began to put out too many console
Re:Don't forget the most important Nintendo name
on
Both Sides of Wii
·
· Score: 1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Playstation
After the collapse of the joint project, Sony considered halting their research, but ultimately the company decided to use what they had developed so far and make it into a complete, stand alone console.
Certainly doesn't sound built from the ground up.
This led to Nintendo filing a lawsuit claiming breach of contract and attempted, in U.S. federal court, to obtain an injunction against the release of the Play Station, on the grounds that Nintendo owned the name
Keep in mind that both the name and the system (of the playstation) was built from both sides. Sony could have come up with another name but stuck with 'playstation' just to stick it to Nintendo.
And ever since then, Sony has been using the same exact name. Playstation, Playstation 2, Playstation Portable, Playstation 3. It is interesting how in this industry very few 'fresh' consoles names are introduced. Half of them are filled with numbers. Alas.
Don't forget the most important Nintendo name
on
Both Sides of Wii
·
· Score: 1
During the SNES days, Ninendo named its cd-addon calling it the 'playstation'. Sony took that name to market with Nintendo suing them. Nintendo was unsuccessful.
Playstation is a Nintendo name as well. Aside from Sega and the Xbox, Nintendo has name practically every console we know.
It is interesting that you mentioned Gran Turismo 3 and not Gran Turismo 4.
While Gran Turismo 3 sold around 14 million, Gran Turismo 4 sold around 6.3 million. This is more than a 50% decline.
If Grand Theft Auto is such a system seller, why didn't it move PSPs?
Think of it this way. The movie Titanic was loved by females. But if movie studios kept making chick flick type movies, its sales would decline due to boredom and they would lose the other demographics. This is exactly occuring to the video game market now.
Whichever console sells to the most demographics will sell the most systems this generation. Both Nintendo and Peter Moore are on record for saying this. Sony is on record for pointing out that is the problem with the PSP.
Third party support is *Essential* for console success.
I don't disagree with this. I am saying it is being way overblown.
The problem is always presented as 'an issue for Nintendo's consoles,' when, in reality, it is an issue for ALL consoles.
No matter how high the quality of Nintendo's titles may be, they can only produce so many per year before quality suffers as a result. Nintendo's top franchises are great, but not substantially better than best that SCEA, Capcom, Namco, Square Enix, EA, Konami, etc can produce.
Sales numbers point out a different story. While Square Enix games, for example, have been extremely popular in Japan (and were even bundled with the original Famicom), there are not as critical because they target the same typical market. Hollywood is in trouble because they kept making movies that hammered the same audience and demographic again and again. Video games are beginning to face that problem now.
Animal Crossing WW has outsold Final Fantasy 12 in Japan. Nintendogs has outsold practically any game not called 'Grand Theft Auto' in the past few years.
One reason why third parties are overblown is because they keep targeting the same traditional hardcore market. In Japan, the market has been slowly shrinking. It is beginning to stagnate in America. Unless games are made to cater beyond the usual nerd gamer (marketing has labeled these individuals as 'hardcore' players), the market will never grow.
A previous poster claimed that nintendo's first party titles have "the widest appeal" but that's simply not true. If you don't like cutesy platform games, you're out of luck.
I am not basing this as my opinion, but as a reflection from looking at the sales numbers. Nintendo's games sell well to all demographics and genders. There are few other game companies that can pull that off.
For example: what's the Nintendo first party equivalent to Gran Turismo? Shadow of the Colossus? Soul Calibur? Guitar Hero? God of War? Metal Gear Solid 3? Final Fantasy X? Grand Theft Auto? Indigo Prophecy? Guilty Gear XX? Fight Night? Silent Hill? (no, the RE series is NOT like Silent Hill, and hasn't been for some time.) All of these games (except perhaps indigo) sold extremely well so there's clearly an audience nintendo is neglecting.
You need to ask yourself: "What are the demographics of the buyers of those games?" They are all the same exact demographic: young males. It is an important demographic to have, but you need more.
As I said earlier, Kutaragi pointed out the big problem with the PSP is that the demographics of the PSP are 96% young male.
Having solid, quality 3rd party developers on board means that you don't have to spend time watering down your titles to appeal to "everyone."
A game that appeals to everyone is considered to you to be 'watered down'? How is a game better when it is locked within only a narrow demographic? It certainly won't sell better.
Looking at the PS2, No matter what your taste in games is there's a very high chance you can find a title you like. Are there bad titles? sure. But a quick trip to gamerankings or similar can easily steer you away from the ones not worth your time.
You're confusing having a vast library of games to having good third party support. They are not the same.
Let me use the PSP for example. It has excellent third party support. But game development is so expensive and time consuming that less games appear on the system. Contrast this to the DS where games such as Brain Trainer can be made in three months.
My point is gaining third party support is no guarentee of building a vast library of games. Development costs, the time it takes to produce a game, and other features (such as tying each game into a behemoth online service) can hamper the goal of creating a vast library.
Third party support is important but way overblown. The Revolution will soar or die depending on first party support especially around launch.
What many people don't realize is that Super Mario Brothers was not an 'original' game. It was a spin-off from Mario Brothers. And Mario Brothers was a spin-off from the Donkey Kong games.
Nintendo has been spinning off Mario for decades. Sometimes, the spin-off gives rise to a new independent franchise (Super Mario Brothers, Super Mario Kart, and Smash Brothers are good examples) while other spin-offs do not work as well (Dr. Mario, the various Mario sports games, and so on).
Sure, the GameCube has a few truly original games, like Pikmin. But the PS2 has plenty of truly original games too, and you're blinded by fanboyishness if you can't see it.
I've noticed that those who accuse others of fanboyishness are those who are most afflicted by it.
The reason why I responded how I did was that the poster sincerely believed it was 'fact' that one console was a toy (while the others were not). This 'fact' is actually marketing from Sony and Microsoft.
Whether one loves whichever console company isn't the matter. But too many people believe swallow the 'marketing' as fact in this hype-filled industry. (Nintendo has its 'marketing' as well.)
Whether Nintendo can target a wider demographic with a console remains to be seen. They've clearly failed with the GameCube, and even if they've arguably managed with their handhelds, that doesn't necessarily mean they'll succeed with a console.
I love the double standards of the games industry. This is the typical 'Nintendo's success in portables doesn't translate to console success.' (without factoring in the only real competition Nintendo portable has had was Sega's Game Gear decades ago).
The double standard is that people do not apply this to Sony. I was told that Sony's success in the console market translated to success in the portable market, that the PSP would destroy the DS. The analysts were right, the PSP SHOULD have won. Sony is the master of portable consumer electronics. The PSP didn't win because the DS altered the portable gaming market by drawing in lapsed gamers and non-gamers. This is why the DS skyrocketed to success in Japan (whose games market was in decline) and is selling strongly in Europe and America.
Another fun 'double standard' is that both the Gamecube and Xbox have sold around 20 million units. Yet, somehow the Gamecube is "clearly a failure" while the Xbox is "a huge roaring success". I wish someone would explain that to me.
Yamauchi has said that the winner of the portable war will be the victor of the console war. I tend to put more stock in Yamauchi's business analysis than the random Slashdot poster.
And all of that is beside the point. I was replying to someone who claimed that Sony couldn't make good first party software. I simply provided counterexamples.
No, you didn't understand the original issue. Whether or not *you* think the games are great doesn't matter. What matters is if the games MOVE SYSTEMS. And to move the system is to put out software that appeals to a wider demographic. While Halo has been very good for Microsoft, for example, they know they have to put out software that can appeal to beyond the usual 'halo demographic' which is why Peter Moore said Rare made 'Viva Pinanta' game.
Nintendo games have always moved their consoles. Sony games have not.
Let me put it to you this way: Nintendo can survive solely on its first party games. Sony cannot. Look at the PSP! Sony is the vulnerable one here.
BTW, my favorite double standard is this:
When the Virtual Console was announced, everyone said, "But what about third party support?"
When Sony announced PS1 download service for PSP and PS1/PS2 download service for PS3, everyone's reaction was: "OMG, I cannot wait to download Final Fantasy Tactics and Symphony of the Night." Third parties are always automatically assumed. With such high development costs and people buying the system for non-game purposes (like movies), great third party output for Nintendo's competitors cannot be assumed. Again, look what happened to the PSP with its huge development costs and overall low game sales.
Look at the PS2 and Gamecube system sales versus software sales. Game sales were very high on the Gamecube. This is a reason why companies like Sega are staying close to Nintendo as all their games are selling the strongest on the Gamecube. The popular perceptions of third parties and Nintendo really don't have much founding in fact.
There's one way to explain why the NES didn't have 3rd party support in the beginning; because in the beginning, it wasn't a "console" as we know it. It was a $200 toy made by a very nimble and clever toy company. Donkey Kong, Super Mario Bros. and Zelda were all designed by a toy maker. The idea of a console as media conduit for 3rd party content makers didn't catch up to the NES for quite some time.
The Japanese were linking their Famicoms up to satellites, to disk systems, and even trading stock on it. The idea of a multimedia console is not new and has been tried even before the Famicom (those consoles that tried to use the tape decks as well, haha). You do realize that Famicom meant 'Family Computer' right?
Nintendo has been a games maker, not a toy maker. Before the Famicon, Nintendo was one of the top arcade game makers (Donkey Kong, Donkey Kong Jr.) and provided the killer app for the Colecovision (second in marketshare to the Atari 2600 thanks partly due to the Donkey Kong port). And before the Famicom, Nintendo had been making electronics including the Game and Watch (which has been reincarnated into the DS).
Nintendo spend R&D money to develop and ship out their console. It was their market. Back then, Nintendo had every right to define what rules any third party would play. Sega would do the same.
Third party content for consoles was not new. Nintendo was the third party content for the Colecovision and (if I recall correctly) PCs at the time. Third parties had a renaissance with Electronic Arts back in the early eighties. Third parties were nothing new.
If the NES was a 'toy', then your TV could also be labeled a 'toy'. You guys have to remember your history. Pong and Atari 2600 sold mostly to adults at first. Hell, the very first versions of Pong and Donkey Kong were market tested in bars! Don't give me this 'toy' garbage. These systems had millions of dollars invested in them and they were capable of generating billions of dollars of revenue. These game consoles are one of the fastest and most profit grossing business ever made. This is why it is so competitive. At the time, Atari was the fastest growing company ever in American history (if the Discovery Channel is accurate with their documentary).
In the end, even the GameCube was a toy; almost every huge game for the system was an accessory to that toy made by the toy manufacturer. Call me crazy, but I think this is probably why Nintendo always profits and Sony/Microsoft always run a deficit on their systems. Microsoft and Sony are making the hardware a tool for developers to get their games out; they rely on the creativity and ingenuity of those developers to drive sales of the system, and sales of each others' games. But Nintendo is relying on their own creativity because they don't just think of their product as a tool; they think of it as a toy, and so they see it as their responsibility to make their toy fun and desirable. Sony doesn't, unless you count making exclusive deals with RPG makers. Microsoft doesn't, unless you count buying up successful game companies and forcing them to make reptitive sequels.
Is this an attempt at trolling? You seriously don't believe this, do you?
Nintendo, Atari, and Sega are/were primarily SOFTWARE companies. They designed the hardware to match the software. Nintendo is only in the console business to have absolute control over the hardware the software appears on (*points to what happened to how Coleco threw Nintendo to the wolves back in the early 80s*). You could say that Miyamoto is the only game designer left on Earth now who can design the hardware to service his software.
Sony and Microsoft are in the hardware business of consoles (for Microsoft, perhaps more of the OSes of the consoles like Marketplace and Xbox Live). Sony does not design its hardware around its software which is its huge chief disadvantage (as we are fast seeing with the PSP and probably the PS3). If you've noticed, the Sony console and controller are exactly t
Nope. This is reality. All those you cited, except perhaps the Eyetoy, only target a narrow demographic. None of them have the wide appeal of the Nintendo titles.
What will determine the console war is not what *YOU* think the quality of software is. Sony's software is good and fine but there is a strict limitation to it. What will determine the console war is who taps into the most demographics.
The reason why the DS outsold the PSP was because the DS had software that appealed to more demographics (from Nintendogs for females to Brain Age for old adults). Kutaragi has admitted that the PSP has a 96% male demographic.
Women are not going to be buying Twisted Metal. Old adults are not going to be buying Gran Turismo. But they will pick up Mario Kart when they pick up their Nintendogs and Brain Training.
Third party support really won't make or break the Revolution. It will be the first party support.
For the first couple of years, the Famicom had no third party support. Yet, it beat its challengers such as the Atari 2600 (or whatever they called it in Japan). When the NES emerged in America, it was the quality of first party titles that moved systems. People bought the NES because of Super Mario Brothers and Zelda. Third party support was icing on the cake.
Look at the Super Nintendo. The quality of first party (and second party) games moved systems. People wanted Super Mario World. Later, they wanted Super Mario Kart, Donkey Kong Country, and Super Mario All-Stars (the best selling SNES games).
Look at the N64. Again, the quality of first party titles was the primary driver of system sales. Super Mario 64, Zelda: Ocarina of Time, and Super Mario Kart 64 were the best selling N64 games.
Now look at the Gamecube. The quality of first party titles were still good but disapointing to what Nintendo delivers. Honestly, would anyone say Super Mario Sunshine, Zelda: Windwaker, Mario Kart: Double Dash were the best entries in the franchise? Most fans had problems with them in one way or another. And while Metroid Prime was nice, it also put off many traditional Metroid fans. The problem with the Gamecube was really with the Nintendo made games. Second party games became a joke (as Rare became a joke).
The DS had this initial problem. At launch, the 'best' DS game was Super Mario 64 DS... a port! Warioware Touched was a disapointment to warioware fans, Polarium was a joke, but at least Yoshi's Touch and Go was decent. The real change occurred with the DS not when great third party titles came out like Castlevania: DS or Meteos, but with First and Second Party Nintendo games like Kirby: CC, Advanced Wars: DS, and the killer-app of Mario Kart DS. Add in Nintendogs if you'd like. The DS is moving because Nintendo is focusing hard on the quality of their software. Tetris DS is amazing. Metroid Prime Hunters is impressive. Brain Age is... different. I have no doubt that New Super Mario Brothers will be a killer app as Mario Kart DS was.
Keep in mind that the same situation applied for Sega. Sega began to move consoles only when it made games like Sonic.
Third party support is important but nowhere near as important as first party support. Nintendo is the #2 game publisher for good reason.
All this talk about third parties is really only because Sony and Microsoft are in the market. Do you ever hear talk about first parties? No! Because Sony and Microsoft cannot match the sheer quality and diversity of first party Nintendo games. This is why their marketing will say, "Only Nintendo games sell very well on Nintendo consoles," without mentioning the fact that this has been the case ever since the NES.
Only a few third party games ever seem to move consoles. Losing Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest hurt Nintendo especially in Japan. Not having Grand Theft Auto 3 hurt Nintendo in the West and helped give it the reputation of 'kiddie console' (though Nintendo didn't help with its purple toy look).
Through console history, the primary system sellers have almost always been Nintendo's first party games. This is why the DS is outselling the PSP even with western third party support for the DS being very low yet very high for the PSP. This is why when Peter Mooer said that if he could take any game franchise from any other system, his answer was solid: "Mario. I want Mario." Peter Moore knows that Mario sells. Even the disapointing Super Mario Sunshine sold as much as Halo did. Moore knows what moves units which is why he would pick up Mario if he ever could.
Paramount has been wondering whether a re-creation of the original Star Trek (of Kirk, Spock, and the rest) would sell as a series. The purpose of this movie is to test those waters. If this movie does well, Paramount will go ahead and make a new Star Trek series which is a remade TOS. If the movie does badly, I guess Paramount goes back to the drawing boards.
I'm hoping the movie bombs. Next Star Trek series should be a generation after where Voyager and DS9 ended.
Decline due to the console cycle transition a myth
on
A DS In Every Pot
·
· Score: 1
Actually, most of the next-gen consoles have already come out. Both the DS and PSP are out. The Xbox 360 is already out. There is absolutely no reason for the sales to keep declining like they have.
People who say, "It is the end of a transition cycle so sales should be down" really don't know what they are talking about. In Japan, the number of gamers has been steadily shrinking from ten years ago (and is only being reversed now due to the DS... hmm...). In North America, this trend has begun only a few years ago. NPD sales have shown a decline in overall revenue in the past few years except in 2005 due to more expensive hardware (hello PSP, DS, and Xbox 360!) And even then, software isn't moving as it should. PSP software is in the toilet. Games like Gran Turismo 4 are selling less than Gran Turismo 3. Even mighty Final Fantasy 12 got outsold by Animal Crossing WW in Japan. The #2 software publisher (first is EA) and console maker, Nintendo, has been very vocal about the decline the industry is headed in and why the company is taking such massive risks to 'revitalize' gaming. While we have our cute little opinions, Nintendo, who has been in this industry the longest, is banking billions that this is true. I would examine the situation much more carefully before using the 'console cycle means low sales'.
One thing people never mention when they say 'low sales is due to the console cycle' is, out of the five years, WHICH year is this? Is it the last year? We are in that last year now. Is it the year before? The year before that? Do you honestly believe that two or three years of decline is the same as a console cycle? If so, then we have been in a LONG console cycle!
Low sales due to console cycle transition? I think not. This is a myth that needs to die.
This article is an example of lousy game journalism. The game journalist simply copy and pastes the NPD numbers without verifying if any of it is true or not.
Luckily, we have some journalists who DO check out these numbers. Business Week found that PC Gaming sales were solid and growing. If NPD is so far off on this, how far off is it on console sales?
Actual money being spent is a useful statistic for the game companies. Actual number of gamers doesn't really help a lot, and in fact could look more damaging to companies
So we cannot have reports that may be damaging to companies? If the industry is lying to itself, then it is in worse shape than we thought.
For example: Sony's much touted 100-million PS2 units. While that sounds like a lot (and it is), you have to think how many of those are secondary units in a household or replacements for a dead one... How do you measure?
Sony only releases the 'shipped' numbers, never the 'sold' numbers. If game journalists would stop being lapdogs and insist Sony cough up the actual sold numbers, that would help.
Measuring the number of households playing games would be more useful. The 'growth' of the games industry has not been to MORE people, but only to the same ones. The 'growth' has been repeat sales and multiple consoles for a household. The number of households that have game consoles have not increased in America since the NES, especially when you adjust for population growth. This is why the Atari founder asked, "Where did all the gamers go?"
You use more than one measurement, of course. It is ridiculous to simply say the 'games industry' is growing by leaps and bounds merely based on money spent especially when the industry's products have gotten more expensive. Why not measure health in many measurements to get a more accurate picture?
With all the online content Microsoft seems to be pushing, a 10% attraction rate doesn't look that great to anybody. A better number is how much money people are spending once on Xbox Live.
You seem interested in ignoring certain numbers to make the industry appear rosier than it is. Sure, report the numbers of how much money is spent on Xbox Live. But also report the percentage of people using it.
So, number of gamers doesn't really help the industry and actually makes it look worse than it possibly might be.
So you admit the aim of these reports is to 'help' the industry? Wouldn't it be most helpful for the industry to be honest about itself?
The important thing is attachment rate to systems and how much money are these folks spending on new titles.
What does this matter if the titles and systems become more expensive? All it shows is that the same (or less) gamers replaced their older systems with more expensive ones. This report doesn't say that the number of sales has increased, only there is more money spent.
What you are telling us is that not only is this report useless, it is a PR piece for the games industry to look better than it actually is.
I know this will sound fanboyish, but without the DS and its strong sales (along with the GBA), the average would have been a decline. The PSP does not exactly have a strong software line-up. And console sales have been dwindling.
From the article:
"Total sales for the year were over $10.5 billion, an improvement of six percent over 2004's $9.9 billion and narrowly edging out 2002's $10.2 billion."
This does not mean there are more customers now than before. It simply means people are paying more.
The PSP is more than $200 (with $50 games). The Xbox 360 is $400 (with its games $60). And the DS costs more than a gamecube.
Development costs are going up everywhere (except for the DS). So this 'extra money' will probably not counter the increased costs it takes for new software.
In 2006, the PS3 will cost at least around $500 with around $60 price for games. And PS3 games will not be cheap to develop.
The measuring stick for the games industry needs to be actual gamers, rather than how much money is being spent. If everything costed twice as much and there were less gamers, the article would still say, "Games market had grown!" when, in fact, it actually shrunk.
Um, no, you're the moron. Here is why.
The entire marketing around the Xbox 360 (PS3 may be similiar but it's not out yet) is because of HD graphics. How many people own a HD TV? What about in Japan, Europe, and everywhere else?
The entire difference between a Xbox and Xbox 360 is mostly towards the HD graphics. The gameplay is the same. The controller is virtually identical. We get the same sequels. Even a similiar Xbox Live. In fact, the same games are coming out on both the Xbox and Xbox 360, the difference merely being HD.
If you do not have a HD TV, what is the point of getting a Xbox 360? Why pay so much for a console unless you have the means to display the games to how they are advertised?
This is why I said game consoles have never before required consumers to change their TVs. If you do not have a HD TV, you might as well just get an Xbox 1. It's not like there will be any significant changes (aside HD graphic wise) between Xbox and Xbox 360 games.
"We're in exactly the same position we've been in for 20 years now: some people have older TVs, and will have to settle for a lower quality picture (and sound, for that matter). Some people have newer TVs, and can experience a far better quality picture. This was true in 1985, and it's no different today."
Wrong. Never before have console game developers been required to put on both textures for both standard definition and high definition.
In order for what you say to be true, different TVs (let's say big TVs and small TVS) would require different software implementation. They don't. One display fits all. But different software implementation is required to support both HD and non-HD users. This means development studios must hire more staff to accomadate this new NON-GAMEPLAY RELATED task.
"Hell, we just went through a generation of consoles with fancy things like 5.1 sound outputs. No TV I've ever seen supports this by itself, you have to go and buy more A/V equipment to "get the most out of your console"."
Yes, but that wasn't the only reason to get a new console, was it? If there was a new console who's marketing revolved around 'new 5.1 sound output' what you say would be true.
What we have is a console whose central reason of why you should buy it is 'HD graphics!' and the majority of consumers don't even have HD TVs. And with TV viewership plunging, there is less and less reason to upgrade to HD TV. While Americans may be keen on upgrading their TVs, the rest of the world isn't.
With development costs rising, and the video game market sales shrinking, HD graphics may be the straw to break the camel's back.
1) Television usage has plummeted. Advertising dollars are slowly moving toward the Internet. Due to competing medias, people are watching less and less TV. Those who think HD is to the TV what Color TV was to Black TV do not get this. For many people, there is NO REASON to go re-buy their TV.
2) Xbox 360 and PS3 are the very first consoles (that I know of) that are requiring the consumer to CHANGE their TV to get the most out of the console. No console has ever done this. This means many people will not think it worth buying a Xbox 360 or PS3 if they don't have HD TV. And face the facts: not too many people do.
3) HD increases development costs. From Gears of War developer, Cliffy B, said, "What other entertainment medium that's mass market is at $60 a pop?" said Cliff Bleszinski, lead designer at developer Epic's 360 title "Gears of War," due next year. "If video game pricing continues to go up, we will crash." http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1515122/20051128/ index.jhtml?headlines=true) To those who say, "development prices don't go up with HD", Cliffy B says the opposite. Nintendo says the opposite. Look at the prices for Xbox 360 games at $60 and you can see which direction this is headed. Even Electronic Arts has complained about the higher development costs. This means that all we can expect from HD games is LESS RISK. Since the market for HD games is much lower than normal TV games, they must either sell more games or price them higher.
4) Americans are obsessed with upgrading their televisions (they also have more money to do it). With the exception of perhaps a few other western nations, HD television is not catching on ANYWHERE in the world soon. While the American Market is very important to the games industry, we live in a global age. A console must work globally, not just in the American Market like the Xbox primarily has done.
5) The integration of 3d helped immersion. Rumble feedback helped immersion. Surround sound helped immersion. But how in the world does HD help immersion? While prettier pictures helped a LOT back in the 80s and during the adaptation of 3d, this was due to the console game industry being young (in the 80s) and adapting to 3d (in the 90s). Simpler a prettier image does not make the game more immersive but rather, less. This is why movies like Toy Story did not show the Humans in computerized graphics. It is the Uncanny Valley problem.
There is only ONE purpose of the HD console: that is to be 'technologically' elite with your HD TV. The problem is that video game console is based on bringing cheap entertainment to the masses. You get rich by selling to the poor, you get poor selling to the rich. This is why HD gaming is not important and, and why it will not catch on (at least this new generation).
No, my definition of academics is not people who do not have 'fun', it is people who do not 'play'. It is impossible to 'play' with the academic mindset. Of course academics 'riff' the greats. It is common for common people to tear down great people just to elevate themselves.
Here is a sample of Einstein quotes on academics:
"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education."
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education."
"Education is only a ladder to gather fruit from the tree of knowledge, not the fruit itself"
"I never teach my pupils; I only attempt to provide the conditions in which they can learn."
Mark Twain even said, "I've never let my school interfere with my education."
Shakespeare even wrote a play that revolved around the question, "What is the end of study?" Interesting enough, his answer to those academics (of that time) was to see life through women's eyes. The play ends with the 'thinking Biron' to be sent to the hospital for 6 months to help the sick and dying. If he does not make them 'laugh', then the woman would not marry him. It is a common theme for Shakespeare to mock ambition and intellectual narcissism. No wonder Jaques was left in the forest at the end of "As you like it"!
Academics have no sense of 'play'. In the same way, Ebert has no sense of 'play'. To Ebert, art is authority. It is the academic who perverts art into "authorities". This is why academics can never equal the greats. This is why our richest, most influential people are college drop-outs like Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Rush Limbaugh, among others.
Academics cannot become great because academics are 'risk averse'. This is why they seek tenure in a soft university womb instead of blazing the risks of the outside world like real men.
Instead of being 'serious all the time', academics need to take more risks instead of hiding behind a brick wall of 'theory'. I want to move to this Land of Theory where all these academics emerge from, then I could be always 'right'!
Ebert has the wrong definition of art
on
Why Ebert Was Right
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
Spare me the 'there is no definition of art' cliches. But art does have a definition, and Ebert is using the wrong one. Ebert believes art is a passive 'greatness' that everyone else absorbs. Art is not the 'finished product' but the act of creating it; art is holding the mirror up to Nature.
The art of a statue is not the statue but the sculpting of it. The art of a symphony is not listening to song but the playing and composition of it. The art of literature is not the reading of the book but the writing of the book. We are not a civilization like the Far East or Middle East who conceptionalizes things with the mind. We apply the hand. How else would the gothic cathedrals or symphonies or paintings come about? Art is not a frozen eternal object, it is the fiery act that created it.
A great example would be Shakespeare. There is no 'final version' of a play of Shakespeare. The actors, the acting, the direction, the vision, all make the play different each time it is shown. Ebert, sitting in the audience, thinks art is defined by the perception of the audience. Rather, art is the doing.
Take the example further. The great poems of Humanity were only recently in a 'final form'. They have been sang, with parts added, parts deleted, all for centuries. The great books of Humanity were actually only recently in a 'final form'. They, too, have been written, re-written, with additions added and subtractions made. It is not the book that is the art but the scribbling of the pen. It is not the play that makes the art but the act of 'playing'. It is not the poem that makes the art but the act of singing/chanting/writing it.
Only in this context can video games be understood. Toys are to help children understand (and play) in the world just as art is to help adults understand (and play) in the world. While paintings and movies might be art to the eye, the symphony as art to the ear, it is video games that is art to the hand. Video games revolve around the use of the hand (and when video games refuse to with cutscenes or slideshows, we instinctively refuse to call them video games).
When you play a game (say Mario) and you fall into a hole, you laugh and try again. Ebert would look at that and think it was a bad story, as you fell down the hole. But the player knows that is not what keeps him playing. It is his control, his hand input, that defines and varies the electronic canvas in front of him (within certain game designed rules which the player tries to break anyway).
Ebert might call video games 'fun playing around' but not art. But what else is art but 'fun playing around'? Shakespeare had 'fun playing around' with his plays, that is why he was so good. Mozart had 'fun playing around' with is music. Dickens, Twain, and all the rest had 'fun playing around' with their literature. The reason why academics can never create art is because they never have 'fun playing around'. All great art exudes a sense of play because it was the play that made them.
There are many 'great books' that are sneered by academics because they are 'too enjoyable to read'. The same goes for movies (they hated Star Wars and only praised the boring wacky films). Video games are getting the academic sneer simply because they are FUN. Academics have brainwashed themselves and everyone else that art is not supposed to be fun but to be SERIOUS and that we all must be SERIOUS. And then they wonder why they can't understand why one of the most beloved Shakespeare characters is Falstaff.
Let them be the word pinching tyrants of joy that they are, I'll take Falstaff any day over Ebert. He, at least, knew how to play.
Do we have proof that Sony did this? There is a story of a guy caught in action, but the story never confirmed he was from Sony or anything else.
Look carefully at the pictures. They do not depict the PSP in a positive light. The PSP is like a toy to the children. And in each picture, the children are not even looking at their PSP. Their gaze is elseware as if they were hypnotized. The swirl look in their eyes resembles the Microsoft 360 logo.
These pictures appeared in the major Xbox 360 launch cities of Chicago, New York, San Francisco, and Philadelphia all around the Xbox 360 launch. And Microsoft has done this type of activity before with MSN.
The more I think about it, the more it appears that Microsoft is behind this. It is even better how their rival, Sony, will get the blame for the graffiti.
Your comment makes no sense to me. Not because you did not like it, but because you are comparing it to the SNES version and saying, "nothing original added except octopus squirting ink".
The only Mario Kart I've played was the SNES version. Anyone who says Mario Kart DS adds nothing over the SNES version must not have played the DS version much.
Mario Kart DS adds in...
-Drafting (which you speed up when directly behind your opponent, passing them by.) -Sixteen brand new tracks. How one can say that Waluigi Pinball, Tick Tock Clock, or Airfortress are 'similiar' to the SNES (or other mario kart) tracks must be smoking something. -New twists to battlemode where you blow up your balloons and can steal other people's balloons with speed boost mushrooms. -Bots so you can play battlemode or vs mode in single player. -16 Retro tracks so if you are like me and missed the later incarnations of Mario Kart, those tracks will seem new to you. -More than eight racers to choose from where you can mix and match from many many various karts (once you unlock them). -Of course, the Wi-fi mode. Mario Kart DS plays very well online.
Whether one likes Mario Kart or not is up for you to decide. But to say that this game has nothing new from the the SNES version is not.
The only reason why one would prefer the SNES version is that you were a GOD playing that game but now, with the game becoming a more complicated racer, you have to re-train yourself. And then you go online and find out that you AREN'T the best racer ever. Alas, childhood.
Why bother with High Definition if the console isn't going to center around the TV? Nintendo has never said that the TV will be the axis of which the console revolves around (like previous consoles). Have they ever shown the Revolution playing on a TV? Did you see a TV in the TGS controller video?
Start trying to think like Nintendo. It is not named codenamed Revolution just because of the controller. Here are some quotes:
"I think maybe if I could do anything, I would make it so you don't have to sit in front of a TV and play. If you could have a machine that you just plugged in and played inside a virtual world that - would be just great." Source: Miyamoto in Game Informer p. 50 issue 109.
"We plan on taking advantage of a number of new features in the Revolution, including the controller," Retro Studio's Metroid Prime 3 interview. http://cube.ign.com/articles/638/638879p1.html
"Sitting in front of your monitor with a controller, there's really nowhere to go from that paradigm, all you can do is make it prettier and faster,". -Miyamoto
"I could give you our technical specs, as I'd know you'd like that, but I won't for a simple reason: they really don't matter. The time when horsepower alone made all the difference is over. -Iwata
"We invented the current way a console is played - in front of a television and holding a controller - but maybe that image will change."-Iwata
Slashdot Mirror
-First Generation-
(You could not change the games on the first generation of consoles)
Pong (and all its clones including Ninendo's "Light Tennis")
Break-Out (a Pong spin-off!)
Most consoles revolved around Pong this generation. At the latter end of this console cycle, more creativity was being put in the games with some companies putting out racing and puzzle games (as appeared in Japan).
-Second Generation-
These are the first consoles that could use cartridges. It took a while for the public to realize the machine could play more than one game!
Atari 2600 and the Channel F launched near the same time. But with the public bored of Pong, Channel F eventually exited the market deciding that the public had enough of 'video games'. (Channel F's games were awful anyway). This gave the market entirely to Atari 2600 which began to surge when the home version of Space Invaders came out. Newcomers such as Intellivision entered the market. Colecovision, a late newcomer to the market, bundled its console with a sweet exclusive deal with Nintendo's Donkey Kong. Colecovision also somehow legally won a court case to play all of Atari 2600's hundred games as well on its machine.
With the meteoric profits (Atari, at the time, was the fastest money making business in American history), many 'get-rich-quick' schemers came in who had no business making games (General Oats and Colgate for example). Atari hurt itself by putting out bad games such as E.T. and a poor port of Pac-Man. The market was flooded by games in 1983. With the rise of personal computers and games like Custer's Revenge and Death Race getting bad press, the console market collapsed. Retailers wouldn't even stock game consoles.
-Third Generation-
-NES
-Master System
-Atari console (dead anyway)
Nintendo's Famicom takes over Japan and is re-christened as the 'NES' for America. Nintendo puts in a toy robot and calls it the 'Entertainment System' to convince retailers that it wasn't exactly one of those hated 'video game consoles'. NES sales kept growing and growing with 90% market share. Sega's Master System had whatever was left (not much!).
Nintendo created lock-out chips and draconian licensing deals to avoid the fate of Atari. Third parties were looking for a console not as draconian as Ninetndo's.
The Gameboy is included in this generation.
-Fourth Generation-
-Sega Megadrive
-Super Nintendo
-NEC's PC-Engine (Turbo-graphix 16)
Sega, humiliated with the Master System's poor performance, stepped up with the Megadrive (Genesis in America). Trip Hawkins of Electronic Arts, annoyed that he missed the NES bandwagon, wanted to be the first third party on the Genesis. However, when Sega tried to put EA under a Nintendo style licensing deal, Hawkins told Sega that EA had reverse engineered the Genesis. They were going to make games for their system whether Sega liked it or not. So EA dictated the terms of their licensing agreement. Afterword, Sega quickly put in lockout codes into future Genesis/Megadrive consoles. Third parties, anxious to leave Nintendo, came but were disapointed that Sega wanted to BECOME Nintendo.
Nintendo took Japan, Sega took Europe, while both were tied in America. Sega introduced some extremely aggressive and effective marketing but Sega lost its momentum of putting out games. Nintendo stepped up with reclaiming third parties and put out hot games such as Super Metroid and Donkey Kong Country to have the SNES outsell Genesis in America again.
The PC-Engine from the giant computer maker NEC (NEC's research and development at that time exceeded the ENTIRE companies of Nintendo and Sega) came in second place in Japan and somewhat flopped in America. Nintendo and Sega's fear was that NEC could easily become a vertical monopoly. NEC owned their own manufacturing plants and chip R&D. You just cannot compete with a vertical monopoly. NEC would eventually exit the console market.
Sega began to put out too many console
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Playstation
After the collapse of the joint project, Sony considered halting their research, but ultimately the company decided to use what they had developed so far and make it into a complete, stand alone console.
Certainly doesn't sound built from the ground up.
This led to Nintendo filing a lawsuit claiming breach of contract and attempted, in U.S. federal court, to obtain an injunction against the release of the Play Station, on the grounds that Nintendo owned the name
Keep in mind that both the name and the system (of the playstation) was built from both sides. Sony could have come up with another name but stuck with 'playstation' just to stick it to Nintendo.
And ever since then, Sony has been using the same exact name. Playstation, Playstation 2, Playstation Portable, Playstation 3. It is interesting how in this industry very few 'fresh' consoles names are introduced. Half of them are filled with numbers. Alas.
During the SNES days, Ninendo named its cd-addon calling it the 'playstation'. Sony took that name to market with Nintendo suing them. Nintendo was unsuccessful. Playstation is a Nintendo name as well. Aside from Sega and the Xbox, Nintendo has name practically every console we know.
It is interesting that you mentioned Gran Turismo 3 and not Gran Turismo 4.
While Gran Turismo 3 sold around 14 million, Gran Turismo 4 sold around 6.3 million. This is more than a 50% decline.
If Grand Theft Auto is such a system seller, why didn't it move PSPs?
Think of it this way. The movie Titanic was loved by females. But if movie studios kept making chick flick type movies, its sales would decline due to boredom and they would lose the other demographics. This is exactly occuring to the video game market now.
Whichever console sells to the most demographics will sell the most systems this generation. Both Nintendo and Peter Moore are on record for saying this. Sony is on record for pointing out that is the problem with the PSP.
Third party support is *Essential* for console success.
I don't disagree with this. I am saying it is being way overblown.
The problem is always presented as 'an issue for Nintendo's consoles,' when, in reality, it is an issue for ALL consoles.
No matter how high the quality of Nintendo's titles may be, they can only produce so many per year before quality suffers as a result. Nintendo's top franchises are great, but not substantially better than best that SCEA, Capcom, Namco, Square Enix, EA, Konami, etc can produce.
Sales numbers point out a different story. While Square Enix games, for example, have been extremely popular in Japan (and were even bundled with the original Famicom), there are not as critical because they target the same typical market. Hollywood is in trouble because they kept making movies that hammered the same audience and demographic again and again. Video games are beginning to face that problem now.
Animal Crossing WW has outsold Final Fantasy 12 in Japan. Nintendogs has outsold practically any game not called 'Grand Theft Auto' in the past few years.
One reason why third parties are overblown is because they keep targeting the same traditional hardcore market. In Japan, the market has been slowly shrinking. It is beginning to stagnate in America. Unless games are made to cater beyond the usual nerd gamer (marketing has labeled these individuals as 'hardcore' players), the market will never grow.
A previous poster claimed that nintendo's first party titles have "the widest appeal" but that's simply not true. If you don't like cutesy platform games, you're out of luck.
I am not basing this as my opinion, but as a reflection from looking at the sales numbers. Nintendo's games sell well to all demographics and genders. There are few other game companies that can pull that off.
For example: what's the Nintendo first party equivalent to Gran Turismo? Shadow of the Colossus? Soul Calibur? Guitar Hero? God of War? Metal Gear Solid 3? Final Fantasy X? Grand Theft Auto? Indigo Prophecy? Guilty Gear XX? Fight Night? Silent Hill? (no, the RE series is NOT like Silent Hill, and hasn't been for some time.) All of these games (except perhaps indigo) sold extremely well so there's clearly an audience nintendo is neglecting.
You need to ask yourself: "What are the demographics of the buyers of those games?" They are all the same exact demographic: young males. It is an important demographic to have, but you need more.
As I said earlier, Kutaragi pointed out the big problem with the PSP is that the demographics of the PSP are 96% young male.
Having solid, quality 3rd party developers on board means that you don't have to spend time watering down your titles to appeal to "everyone."
A game that appeals to everyone is considered to you to be 'watered down'? How is a game better when it is locked within only a narrow demographic? It certainly won't sell better.
Looking at the PS2, No matter what your taste in games is there's a very high chance you can find a title you like. Are there bad titles? sure. But a quick trip to gamerankings or similar can easily steer you away from the ones not worth your time.
You're confusing having a vast library of games to having good third party support. They are not the same.
Let me use the PSP for example. It has excellent third party support. But game development is so expensive and time consuming that less games appear on the system. Contrast this to the DS where games such as Brain Trainer can be made in three months.
My point is gaining third party support is no guarentee of building a vast library of games. Development costs, the time it takes to produce a game, and other features (such as tying each game into a behemoth online service) can hamper the goal of creating a vast library.
Third party support is important but way overblown. The Revolution will soar or die depending on first party support especially around launch.
I won't even start on Mario.
What many people don't realize is that Super Mario Brothers was not an 'original' game. It was a spin-off from Mario Brothers. And Mario Brothers was a spin-off from the Donkey Kong games.
Nintendo has been spinning off Mario for decades. Sometimes, the spin-off gives rise to a new independent franchise (Super Mario Brothers, Super Mario Kart, and Smash Brothers are good examples) while other spin-offs do not work as well (Dr. Mario, the various Mario sports games, and so on).
Sure, the GameCube has a few truly original games, like Pikmin. But the PS2 has plenty of truly original games too, and you're blinded by fanboyishness if you can't see it.
I've noticed that those who accuse others of fanboyishness are those who are most afflicted by it.
The reason why I responded how I did was that the poster sincerely believed it was 'fact' that one console was a toy (while the others were not). This 'fact' is actually marketing from Sony and Microsoft.
Whether one loves whichever console company isn't the matter. But too many people believe swallow the 'marketing' as fact in this hype-filled industry. (Nintendo has its 'marketing' as well.)
Whether Nintendo can target a wider demographic with a console remains to be seen. They've clearly failed with the GameCube, and even if they've arguably managed with their handhelds, that doesn't necessarily mean they'll succeed with a console.
I love the double standards of the games industry. This is the typical 'Nintendo's success in portables doesn't translate to console success.' (without factoring in the only real competition Nintendo portable has had was Sega's Game Gear decades ago).
The double standard is that people do not apply this to Sony. I was told that Sony's success in the console market translated to success in the portable market, that the PSP would destroy the DS. The analysts were right, the PSP SHOULD have won. Sony is the master of portable consumer electronics. The PSP didn't win because the DS altered the portable gaming market by drawing in lapsed gamers and non-gamers. This is why the DS skyrocketed to success in Japan (whose games market was in decline) and is selling strongly in Europe and America.
Another fun 'double standard' is that both the Gamecube and Xbox have sold around 20 million units. Yet, somehow the Gamecube is "clearly a failure" while the Xbox is "a huge roaring success". I wish someone would explain that to me.
Yamauchi has said that the winner of the portable war will be the victor of the console war. I tend to put more stock in Yamauchi's business analysis than the random Slashdot poster.
And all of that is beside the point. I was replying to someone who claimed that Sony couldn't make good first party software. I simply provided counterexamples.
No, you didn't understand the original issue. Whether or not *you* think the games are great doesn't matter. What matters is if the games MOVE SYSTEMS. And to move the system is to put out software that appeals to a wider demographic. While Halo has been very good for Microsoft, for example, they know they have to put out software that can appeal to beyond the usual 'halo demographic' which is why Peter Moore said Rare made 'Viva Pinanta' game.
Nintendo games have always moved their consoles. Sony games have not.
Let me put it to you this way: Nintendo can survive solely on its first party games. Sony cannot. Look at the PSP! Sony is the vulnerable one here.
BTW, my favorite double standard is this:
When the Virtual Console was announced, everyone said, "But what about third party support?"
When Sony announced PS1 download service for PSP and PS1/PS2 download service for PS3, everyone's reaction was: "OMG, I cannot wait to download Final Fantasy Tactics and Symphony of the Night." Third parties are always automatically assumed. With such high development costs and people buying the system for non-game purposes (like movies), great third party output for Nintendo's competitors cannot be assumed. Again, look what happened to the PSP with its huge development costs and overall low game sales.
Look at the PS2 and Gamecube system sales versus software sales. Game sales were very high on the Gamecube. This is a reason why companies like Sega are staying close to Nintendo as all their games are selling the strongest on the Gamecube. The popular perceptions of third parties and Nintendo really don't have much founding in fact.
There's one way to explain why the NES didn't have 3rd party support in the beginning; because in the beginning, it wasn't a "console" as we know it. It was a $200 toy made by a very nimble and clever toy company. Donkey Kong, Super Mario Bros. and Zelda were all designed by a toy maker. The idea of a console as media conduit for 3rd party content makers didn't catch up to the NES for quite some time.
The Japanese were linking their Famicoms up to satellites, to disk systems, and even trading stock on it. The idea of a multimedia console is not new and has been tried even before the Famicom (those consoles that tried to use the tape decks as well, haha). You do realize that Famicom meant 'Family Computer' right?
Nintendo has been a games maker, not a toy maker. Before the Famicon, Nintendo was one of the top arcade game makers (Donkey Kong, Donkey Kong Jr.) and provided the killer app for the Colecovision (second in marketshare to the Atari 2600 thanks partly due to the Donkey Kong port). And before the Famicom, Nintendo had been making electronics including the Game and Watch (which has been reincarnated into the DS).
Nintendo spend R&D money to develop and ship out their console. It was their market. Back then, Nintendo had every right to define what rules any third party would play. Sega would do the same.
Third party content for consoles was not new. Nintendo was the third party content for the Colecovision and (if I recall correctly) PCs at the time. Third parties had a renaissance with Electronic Arts back in the early eighties. Third parties were nothing new.
If the NES was a 'toy', then your TV could also be labeled a 'toy'. You guys have to remember your history. Pong and Atari 2600 sold mostly to adults at first. Hell, the very first versions of Pong and Donkey Kong were market tested in bars! Don't give me this 'toy' garbage. These systems had millions of dollars invested in them and they were capable of generating billions of dollars of revenue. These game consoles are one of the fastest and most profit grossing business ever made. This is why it is so competitive. At the time, Atari was the fastest growing company ever in American history (if the Discovery Channel is accurate with their documentary).
In the end, even the GameCube was a toy; almost every huge game for the system was an accessory to that toy made by the toy manufacturer. Call me crazy, but I think this is probably why Nintendo always profits and Sony/Microsoft always run a deficit on their systems. Microsoft and Sony are making the hardware a tool for developers to get their games out; they rely on the creativity and ingenuity of those developers to drive sales of the system, and sales of each others' games. But Nintendo is relying on their own creativity because they don't just think of their product as a tool; they think of it as a toy, and so they see it as their responsibility to make their toy fun and desirable. Sony doesn't, unless you count making exclusive deals with RPG makers. Microsoft doesn't, unless you count buying up successful game companies and forcing them to make reptitive sequels.
Is this an attempt at trolling? You seriously don't believe this, do you?
Nintendo, Atari, and Sega are/were primarily SOFTWARE companies. They designed the hardware to match the software. Nintendo is only in the console business to have absolute control over the hardware the software appears on (*points to what happened to how Coleco threw Nintendo to the wolves back in the early 80s*). You could say that Miyamoto is the only game designer left on Earth now who can design the hardware to service his software.
Sony and Microsoft are in the hardware business of consoles (for Microsoft, perhaps more of the OSes of the consoles like Marketplace and Xbox Live). Sony does not design its hardware around its software which is its huge chief disadvantage (as we are fast seeing with the PSP and probably the PS3). If you've noticed, the Sony console and controller are exactly t
Nope. This is reality. All those you cited, except perhaps the Eyetoy, only target a narrow demographic. None of them have the wide appeal of the Nintendo titles.
What will determine the console war is not what *YOU* think the quality of software is. Sony's software is good and fine but there is a strict limitation to it. What will determine the console war is who taps into the most demographics.
The reason why the DS outsold the PSP was because the DS had software that appealed to more demographics (from Nintendogs for females to Brain Age for old adults). Kutaragi has admitted that the PSP has a 96% male demographic.
Women are not going to be buying Twisted Metal. Old adults are not going to be buying Gran Turismo. But they will pick up Mario Kart when they pick up their Nintendogs and Brain Training.
This is the Blue Ocean Strategy.
Third party support really won't make or break the Revolution. It will be the first party support.
For the first couple of years, the Famicom had no third party support. Yet, it beat its challengers such as the Atari 2600 (or whatever they called it in Japan). When the NES emerged in America, it was the quality of first party titles that moved systems. People bought the NES because of Super Mario Brothers and Zelda. Third party support was icing on the cake.
Look at the Super Nintendo. The quality of first party (and second party) games moved systems. People wanted Super Mario World. Later, they wanted Super Mario Kart, Donkey Kong Country, and Super Mario All-Stars (the best selling SNES games).
Look at the N64. Again, the quality of first party titles was the primary driver of system sales. Super Mario 64, Zelda: Ocarina of Time, and Super Mario Kart 64 were the best selling N64 games.
Now look at the Gamecube. The quality of first party titles were still good but disapointing to what Nintendo delivers. Honestly, would anyone say Super Mario Sunshine, Zelda: Windwaker, Mario Kart: Double Dash were the best entries in the franchise? Most fans had problems with them in one way or another. And while Metroid Prime was nice, it also put off many traditional Metroid fans. The problem with the Gamecube was really with the Nintendo made games. Second party games became a joke (as Rare became a joke).
The DS had this initial problem. At launch, the 'best' DS game was Super Mario 64 DS... a port! Warioware Touched was a disapointment to warioware fans, Polarium was a joke, but at least Yoshi's Touch and Go was decent. The real change occurred with the DS not when great third party titles came out like Castlevania: DS or Meteos, but with First and Second Party Nintendo games like Kirby: CC, Advanced Wars: DS, and the killer-app of Mario Kart DS. Add in Nintendogs if you'd like. The DS is moving because Nintendo is focusing hard on the quality of their software. Tetris DS is amazing. Metroid Prime Hunters is impressive. Brain Age is... different. I have no doubt that New Super Mario Brothers will be a killer app as Mario Kart DS was.
Keep in mind that the same situation applied for Sega. Sega began to move consoles only when it made games like Sonic.
Third party support is important but nowhere near as important as first party support. Nintendo is the #2 game publisher for good reason.
All this talk about third parties is really only because Sony and Microsoft are in the market. Do you ever hear talk about first parties? No! Because Sony and Microsoft cannot match the sheer quality and diversity of first party Nintendo games. This is why their marketing will say, "Only Nintendo games sell very well on Nintendo consoles," without mentioning the fact that this has been the case ever since the NES.
Only a few third party games ever seem to move consoles. Losing Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest hurt Nintendo especially in Japan. Not having Grand Theft Auto 3 hurt Nintendo in the West and helped give it the reputation of 'kiddie console' (though Nintendo didn't help with its purple toy look).
Through console history, the primary system sellers have almost always been Nintendo's first party games. This is why the DS is outselling the PSP even with western third party support for the DS being very low yet very high for the PSP. This is why when Peter Mooer said that if he could take any game franchise from any other system, his answer was solid: "Mario. I want Mario." Peter Moore knows that Mario sells. Even the disapointing Super Mario Sunshine sold as much as Halo did. Moore knows what moves units which is why he would pick up Mario if he ever could.
Paramount has been wondering whether a re-creation of the original Star Trek (of Kirk, Spock, and the rest) would sell as a series. The purpose of this movie is to test those waters. If this movie does well, Paramount will go ahead and make a new Star Trek series which is a remade TOS. If the movie does badly, I guess Paramount goes back to the drawing boards.
I'm hoping the movie bombs. Next Star Trek series should be a generation after where Voyager and DS9 ended.
Actually, most of the next-gen consoles have already come out. Both the DS and PSP are out. The Xbox 360 is already out. There is absolutely no reason for the sales to keep declining like they have.
People who say, "It is the end of a transition cycle so sales should be down" really don't know what they are talking about. In Japan, the number of gamers has been steadily shrinking from ten years ago (and is only being reversed now due to the DS... hmm...). In North America, this trend has begun only a few years ago. NPD sales have shown a decline in overall revenue in the past few years except in 2005 due to more expensive hardware (hello PSP, DS, and Xbox 360!) And even then, software isn't moving as it should. PSP software is in the toilet. Games like Gran Turismo 4 are selling less than Gran Turismo 3. Even mighty Final Fantasy 12 got outsold by Animal Crossing WW in Japan. The #2 software publisher (first is EA) and console maker, Nintendo, has been very vocal about the decline the industry is headed in and why the company is taking such massive risks to 'revitalize' gaming. While we have our cute little opinions, Nintendo, who has been in this industry the longest, is banking billions that this is true. I would examine the situation much more carefully before using the 'console cycle means low sales'.
One thing people never mention when they say 'low sales is due to the console cycle' is, out of the five years, WHICH year is this? Is it the last year? We are in that last year now. Is it the year before? The year before that? Do you honestly believe that two or three years of decline is the same as a console cycle? If so, then we have been in a LONG console cycle!
Low sales due to console cycle transition? I think not. This is a myth that needs to die.
This article is an example of lousy game journalism. The game journalist simply copy and pastes the NPD numbers without verifying if any of it is true or not.
0 05/id20051220_720594.htm?campaign_id=rss_tech
Luckily, we have some journalists who DO check out these numbers. Business Week found that PC Gaming sales were solid and growing. If NPD is so far off on this, how far off is it on console sales?
http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/dec2
Actual money being spent is a useful statistic for the game companies. Actual number of gamers doesn't really help a lot, and in fact could look more damaging to companies
So we cannot have reports that may be damaging to companies? If the industry is lying to itself, then it is in worse shape than we thought.
For example: Sony's much touted 100-million PS2 units. While that sounds like a lot (and it is), you have to think how many of those are secondary units in a household or replacements for a dead one... How do you measure?
Sony only releases the 'shipped' numbers, never the 'sold' numbers. If game journalists would stop being lapdogs and insist Sony cough up the actual sold numbers, that would help.
Measuring the number of households playing games would be more useful. The 'growth' of the games industry has not been to MORE people, but only to the same ones. The 'growth' has been repeat sales and multiple consoles for a household. The number of households that have game consoles have not increased in America since the NES, especially when you adjust for population growth. This is why the Atari founder asked, "Where did all the gamers go?"
You use more than one measurement, of course. It is ridiculous to simply say the 'games industry' is growing by leaps and bounds merely based on money spent especially when the industry's products have gotten more expensive. Why not measure health in many measurements to get a more accurate picture?
With all the online content Microsoft seems to be pushing, a 10% attraction rate doesn't look that great to anybody. A better number is how much money people are spending once on Xbox Live.
You seem interested in ignoring certain numbers to make the industry appear rosier than it is. Sure, report the numbers of how much money is spent on Xbox Live. But also report the percentage of people using it.
So, number of gamers doesn't really help the industry and actually makes it look worse than it possibly might be.
So you admit the aim of these reports is to 'help' the industry? Wouldn't it be most helpful for the industry to be honest about itself?
The important thing is attachment rate to systems and how much money are these folks spending on new titles.
What does this matter if the titles and systems become more expensive? All it shows is that the same (or less) gamers replaced their older systems with more expensive ones. This report doesn't say that the number of sales has increased, only there is more money spent.
What you are telling us is that not only is this report useless, it is a PR piece for the games industry to look better than it actually is.
I know this will sound fanboyish, but without the DS and its strong sales (along with the GBA), the average would have been a decline. The PSP does not exactly have a strong software line-up. And console sales have been dwindling.
From the article:
"Total sales for the year were over $10.5 billion, an improvement of six percent over 2004's $9.9 billion and narrowly edging out 2002's $10.2 billion."
This does not mean there are more customers now than before. It simply means people are paying more.
The PSP is more than $200 (with $50 games). The Xbox 360 is $400 (with its games $60). And the DS costs more than a gamecube.
Development costs are going up everywhere (except for the DS). So this 'extra money' will probably not counter the increased costs it takes for new software.
In 2006, the PS3 will cost at least around $500 with around $60 price for games. And PS3 games will not be cheap to develop.
The measuring stick for the games industry needs to be actual gamers, rather than how much money is being spent. If everything costed twice as much and there were less gamers, the article would still say, "Games market had grown!" when, in fact, it actually shrunk.
Um, no, you're the moron. Here is why. The entire marketing around the Xbox 360 (PS3 may be similiar but it's not out yet) is because of HD graphics. How many people own a HD TV? What about in Japan, Europe, and everywhere else? The entire difference between a Xbox and Xbox 360 is mostly towards the HD graphics. The gameplay is the same. The controller is virtually identical. We get the same sequels. Even a similiar Xbox Live. In fact, the same games are coming out on both the Xbox and Xbox 360, the difference merely being HD. If you do not have a HD TV, what is the point of getting a Xbox 360? Why pay so much for a console unless you have the means to display the games to how they are advertised? This is why I said game consoles have never before required consumers to change their TVs. If you do not have a HD TV, you might as well just get an Xbox 1. It's not like there will be any significant changes (aside HD graphic wise) between Xbox and Xbox 360 games. "We're in exactly the same position we've been in for 20 years now: some people have older TVs, and will have to settle for a lower quality picture (and sound, for that matter). Some people have newer TVs, and can experience a far better quality picture. This was true in 1985, and it's no different today." Wrong. Never before have console game developers been required to put on both textures for both standard definition and high definition. In order for what you say to be true, different TVs (let's say big TVs and small TVS) would require different software implementation. They don't. One display fits all. But different software implementation is required to support both HD and non-HD users. This means development studios must hire more staff to accomadate this new NON-GAMEPLAY RELATED task. "Hell, we just went through a generation of consoles with fancy things like 5.1 sound outputs. No TV I've ever seen supports this by itself, you have to go and buy more A/V equipment to "get the most out of your console"." Yes, but that wasn't the only reason to get a new console, was it? If there was a new console who's marketing revolved around 'new 5.1 sound output' what you say would be true. What we have is a console whose central reason of why you should buy it is 'HD graphics!' and the majority of consumers don't even have HD TVs. And with TV viewership plunging, there is less and less reason to upgrade to HD TV. While Americans may be keen on upgrading their TVs, the rest of the world isn't. With development costs rising, and the video game market sales shrinking, HD graphics may be the straw to break the camel's back.
1) Television usage has plummeted. Advertising dollars are slowly moving toward the Internet. Due to competing medias, people are watching less and less TV. Those who think HD is to the TV what Color TV was to Black TV do not get this. For many people, there is NO REASON to go re-buy their TV.
/ index.jhtml?headlines=true) To those who say, "development prices don't go up with HD", Cliffy B says the opposite. Nintendo says the opposite. Look at the prices for Xbox 360 games at $60 and you can see which direction this is headed. Even Electronic Arts has complained about the higher development costs. This means that all we can expect from HD games is LESS RISK. Since the market for HD games is much lower than normal TV games, they must either sell more games or price them higher.
2) Xbox 360 and PS3 are the very first consoles (that I know of) that are requiring the consumer to CHANGE their TV to get the most out of the console. No console has ever done this. This means many people will not think it worth buying a Xbox 360 or PS3 if they don't have HD TV. And face the facts: not too many people do.
3) HD increases development costs. From Gears of War developer, Cliffy B, said, "What other entertainment medium that's mass market is at $60 a pop?" said Cliff Bleszinski, lead designer at developer Epic's 360 title "Gears of War," due next year. "If video game pricing continues to go up, we will crash." http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1515122/20051128
4) Americans are obsessed with upgrading their televisions (they also have more money to do it). With the exception of perhaps a few other western nations, HD television is not catching on ANYWHERE in the world soon. While the American Market is very important to the games industry, we live in a global age. A console must work globally, not just in the American Market like the Xbox primarily has done.
5) The integration of 3d helped immersion. Rumble feedback helped immersion. Surround sound helped immersion. But how in the world does HD help immersion? While prettier pictures helped a LOT back in the 80s and during the adaptation of 3d, this was due to the console game industry being young (in the 80s) and adapting to 3d (in the 90s). Simpler a prettier image does not make the game more immersive but rather, less. This is why movies like Toy Story did not show the Humans in computerized graphics. It is the Uncanny Valley problem.
There is only ONE purpose of the HD console: that is to be 'technologically' elite with your HD TV. The problem is that video game console is based on bringing cheap entertainment to the masses. You get rich by selling to the poor, you get poor selling to the rich. This is why HD gaming is not important and, and why it will not catch on (at least this new generation).
No, my definition of academics is not people who do not have 'fun', it is people who do not 'play'. It is impossible to 'play' with the academic mindset. Of course academics 'riff' the greats. It is common for common people to tear down great people just to elevate themselves.
Here is a sample of Einstein quotes on academics:
"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education."
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education."
"Education is only a ladder to gather fruit from the tree of knowledge, not the fruit itself"
"I never teach my pupils; I only attempt to provide the conditions in which they can learn."
Mark Twain even said, "I've never let my school interfere with my education."
Shakespeare even wrote a play that revolved around the question, "What is the end of study?" Interesting enough, his answer to those academics (of that time) was to see life through women's eyes. The play ends with the 'thinking Biron' to be sent to the hospital for 6 months to help the sick and dying. If he does not make them 'laugh', then the woman would not marry him. It is a common theme for Shakespeare to mock ambition and intellectual narcissism. No wonder Jaques was left in the forest at the end of "As you like it"!
Academics have no sense of 'play'. In the same way, Ebert has no sense of 'play'. To Ebert, art is authority. It is the academic who perverts art into "authorities". This is why academics can never equal the greats. This is why our richest, most influential people are college drop-outs like Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Rush Limbaugh, among others.
Academics cannot become great because academics are 'risk averse'. This is why they seek tenure in a soft university womb instead of blazing the risks of the outside world like real men.
Instead of being 'serious all the time', academics need to take more risks instead of hiding behind a brick wall of 'theory'. I want to move to this Land of Theory where all these academics emerge from, then I could be always 'right'!
Spare me the 'there is no definition of art' cliches. But art does have a definition, and Ebert is using the wrong one. Ebert believes art is a passive 'greatness' that everyone else absorbs. Art is not the 'finished product' but the act of creating it; art is holding the mirror up to Nature.
The art of a statue is not the statue but the sculpting of it. The art of a symphony is not listening to song but the playing and composition of it. The art of literature is not the reading of the book but the writing of the book. We are not a civilization like the Far East or Middle East who conceptionalizes things with the mind. We apply the hand. How else would the gothic cathedrals or symphonies or paintings come about? Art is not a frozen eternal object, it is the fiery act that created it.
A great example would be Shakespeare. There is no 'final version' of a play of Shakespeare. The actors, the acting, the direction, the vision, all make the play different each time it is shown. Ebert, sitting in the audience, thinks art is defined by the perception of the audience. Rather, art is the doing.
Take the example further. The great poems of Humanity were only recently in a 'final form'. They have been sang, with parts added, parts deleted, all for centuries. The great books of Humanity were actually only recently in a 'final form'. They, too, have been written, re-written, with additions added and subtractions made. It is not the book that is the art but the scribbling of the pen. It is not the play that makes the art but the act of 'playing'. It is not the poem that makes the art but the act of singing/chanting/writing it.
Only in this context can video games be understood. Toys are to help children understand (and play) in the world just as art is to help adults understand (and play) in the world. While paintings and movies might be art to the eye, the symphony as art to the ear, it is video games that is art to the hand. Video games revolve around the use of the hand (and when video games refuse to with cutscenes or slideshows, we instinctively refuse to call them video games).
When you play a game (say Mario) and you fall into a hole, you laugh and try again. Ebert would look at that and think it was a bad story, as you fell down the hole. But the player knows that is not what keeps him playing. It is his control, his hand input, that defines and varies the electronic canvas in front of him (within certain game designed rules which the player tries to break anyway).
Ebert might call video games 'fun playing around' but not art. But what else is art but 'fun playing around'? Shakespeare had 'fun playing around' with his plays, that is why he was so good. Mozart had 'fun playing around' with is music. Dickens, Twain, and all the rest had 'fun playing around' with their literature. The reason why academics can never create art is because they never have 'fun playing around'. All great art exudes a sense of play because it was the play that made them.
There are many 'great books' that are sneered by academics because they are 'too enjoyable to read'. The same goes for movies (they hated Star Wars and only praised the boring wacky films). Video games are getting the academic sneer simply because they are FUN. Academics have brainwashed themselves and everyone else that art is not supposed to be fun but to be SERIOUS and that we all must be SERIOUS. And then they wonder why they can't understand why one of the most beloved Shakespeare characters is Falstaff.
Let them be the word pinching tyrants of joy that they are, I'll take Falstaff any day over Ebert. He, at least, knew how to play.
Do we have proof that Sony did this? There is a story of a guy caught in action, but the story never confirmed he was from Sony or anything else.
Look carefully at the pictures. They do not depict the PSP in a positive light. The PSP is like a toy to the children. And in each picture, the children are not even looking at their PSP. Their gaze is elseware as if they were hypnotized. The swirl look in their eyes resembles the Microsoft 360 logo.
These pictures appeared in the major Xbox 360 launch cities of Chicago, New York, San Francisco, and Philadelphia all around the Xbox 360 launch. And Microsoft has done this type of activity before with MSN.
The more I think about it, the more it appears that Microsoft is behind this. It is even better how their rival, Sony, will get the blame for the graffiti.
Your comment makes no sense to me. Not because you did not like it, but because you are comparing it to the SNES version and saying, "nothing original added except octopus squirting ink".
The only Mario Kart I've played was the SNES version. Anyone who says Mario Kart DS adds nothing over the SNES version must not have played the DS version much.
Mario Kart DS adds in...
-Drafting (which you speed up when directly behind your opponent, passing them by.)
-Sixteen brand new tracks. How one can say that Waluigi Pinball, Tick Tock Clock, or Airfortress are 'similiar' to the SNES (or other mario kart) tracks must be smoking something.
-New twists to battlemode where you blow up your balloons and can steal other people's balloons with speed boost mushrooms.
-Bots so you can play battlemode or vs mode in single player.
-16 Retro tracks so if you are like me and missed the later incarnations of Mario Kart, those tracks will seem new to you.
-More than eight racers to choose from where you can mix and match from many many various karts (once you unlock them).
-Of course, the Wi-fi mode. Mario Kart DS plays very well online.
Whether one likes Mario Kart or not is up for you to decide. But to say that this game has nothing new from the the SNES version is not.
The only reason why one would prefer the SNES version is that you were a GOD playing that game but now, with the game becoming a more complicated racer, you have to re-train yourself. And then you go online and find out that you AREN'T the best racer ever. Alas, childhood.
Why bother with High Definition if the console isn't going to center around the TV? Nintendo has never said that the TV will be the axis of which the console revolves around (like previous consoles). Have they ever shown the Revolution playing on a TV? Did you see a TV in the TGS controller video?
Start trying to think like Nintendo. It is not named codenamed Revolution just because of the controller. Here are some quotes:
"I think maybe if I could do anything, I would make it so you don't have to sit in front of a TV and play. If you could have a machine that you just plugged in and played inside a virtual world that - would be just great." Source: Miyamoto in Game Informer p. 50 issue 109.
"We plan on taking advantage of a number of new features in the Revolution, including the controller," Retro Studio's Metroid Prime 3 interview. http://cube.ign.com/articles/638/638879p1.html
"Obviously there's so much that we haven't said about Revolution,..." Post TGS comment by Beth Llewelyn http://cube.ign.com/articles/659/659020p1.html
"Sitting in front of your monitor with a controller, there's really nowhere to go from that paradigm, all you can do is make it prettier and faster,". -Miyamoto
"I could give you our technical specs, as I'd know you'd like that, but I won't for a simple reason: they really don't matter. The time when horsepower alone made all the difference is over. -Iwata
"We invented the current way a console is played - in front of a television and holding a controller - but maybe that image will change."-Iwata