Post by: Kairon on May 19, 2005, 02:32:46 PM
Simply put, Nintendo is little more than a large, experimental Japanese software company. Compared to the Cancerous-Domino-Octopus Microsoft, or the Skynet-like Sony, Nintendo has less resources, less know-how, less technological know-how, less pervasive market presence, and less chance than a snowball in hell.
So how does Nintendo seem to be coping? By examining the strategy of Sony and Microsoft. Sony and Microsoft are NOT in this for the games, they see the videogame market as a backdoor entry into people's living rooms, with their systems slowly progressing into what Sony and Microsoft hope to be game/DVR/computer/tv/internet hybrids. They basically want to take control of all of people's entertainment options via the game system, and this is what leads them on their rampage to cutting edge technology, endless ports, and that "technolust" factor that drives the early adopters in a traditional consumer electronics product plan.
Where's the chink of armor in that? With the first hints of the revolution, we should see how Nintendo hopes to carve out a successful niche for themselves in the market: Instead of committing hara-kiri by trying to out-compete Sony or Microsoft on Electronics or Computer technology (areas where absolutely NO one can challenge either Sony or Microsoft), they are trying to broaden the casual gaming market directly. This is what Nintendo means when they say "Revolution," they will try to change the structure of the videogame market where casual gamers are not the hangers-on off whatever the technolusting early adopters do, but instead are customers who can be sold to directly via introduction of new control schemes, new game types, and simplicity of use and pricing.
We can already see this with Nintendo's DS. Nintendogs, Electro-Plankton, Mystery games and Wario Ware are all games that defy contemporary hardcore convention: instead of providing a linear gameplay experience, they create new types of gameplay that appeal to Non-Traditional gamers, i.e. new customers who wouldn't normally be sought after by Sony or Microsoft except as after-thoughts who buy the PS2 3 years after it's out. Is it successful? Again, look to the DS. While "traditional straight-shootin' console gamers" like us don't know what to make of it, the Japanese have made the tamagotchi-esque Nintendogs a huge hit. And Animal Crossing DS may just prove to be the unique DS hit that Nintendo is incorporating into their battle plan: instead of having a select few early adopters ooh and ah at minimally improved graphics while gameplay remains virtually the same, Nintendo can offer games aimed directly at the wider-than-expected casual gaming market where Halo, Tekken, and MGS are not considered god's gifts to men.
This strategy allows Nintendo to choose their battleground. If Nintendo fights Sony and Microsoft solely on technology, or electonica geek-lust, then they will always lose. Always. But Sony and Microsoft are concentrated on taking over the living room via the early-adopter technolust strategy, so that leaves them blind to new gameplay possibilities. Already, we've seen the PS3 and X360 controllers. They are the exact same things as the PS2 and S controllers, except wireless (and imho, uglier). Sony and Microsoft believe that the true future in gaming is merely to keep continuously ramming more power and more graphics, more polys and more lightsources, into games that play basically the same as their predecessors. Nintendo hasn't revealed their controller because like Miyamoto said, Nintendo's analog stick was stolen, as was their rumble pack, their wireless controllers, and so many other innovations that Sony and Microsoft, with their armies of engineers, can replicate within 6 months. Let Sony and Microsoft innovate for themselves.
We've already seen Nintendo start to experiment with the DS's touch screen opening up new styles of gameplay that can appeal to non-traditional gamers. And while with the revolution, the requisite Metroid, SSBM and Mario will satisfy some traditional fans, any growth in marketshare is DIRECTLY reliant on Nintendo's ability to create new gameplay that isn't simply copied over and over by their competitors. And that new gameplay is what Nintendo is holding back, along with their new controller.
What's the revolution? The revolution IS NOT in the increase of technological power, but the application of it. Instead of making systems that can run hotter or faster than each other, Nintendo wants to make something that appeals to people who are outside of Sony and MS' blast radius. Microsoft wants to use the internet to connect players in Perfect Dark Zero deathmatches. Nintendo wants to use it to not only do that for SSBM, but connect Animal Crossing communities in ways that appeal to people without an urge to twitch-kill. Sony seems to believe that if they throw enough polygons at a game, they'llc ross a magical point where it will somehow convey "emotion." Nintendo knows that emotion is not a product of the eyes, but one of the heart. Players didn't cry over Aeris in FF7 because of the graphics, they cared because the story crafted a connection to her; Players won't see their DS' as personal extensions of themselves because of Metroid Prime Hunters (though that may entice some of you out there), but because their Nintendogs have wormed their way into their hearts.
Nintendo's success, ever since Sony entered the game market, has relied on their games. Now, with third parties having the ability to create quality games in any of the conventional genre, Nintendo, even iIF they had third party support, would have nothing to help them stand out...except new games that feature new gamestyles that connect with people who Sony and Microsoft expect to be rewarded with 2 years after their hardcore early adopter launches.
Will it work? Can Nintendo revolutionize, democritize, the industry by creating game experiences, either with ease of use, retro-games, or new gameplay? Only time will tell, and only the secrets that Nintendo's hiding can determine the outcome. Maybe it's even IMPOSSIBLE for Nintendo at this point, maybe the tides of history will be against them, just like it was against so many great powers in the past.
But to me one thing is clear: Nintendo CANNOT compete against Sony or Microsoft on processor speeds or polygon numbers. They will ALWAYS be behind. Nintendo is a company that made Hanafuda playing cards in the past, and software experiences now. Nintendo's only hope to succeed against Sony or Microsoft is to be different. Nintendo will be dead in the water the moment they have a system that is closely comparable to Microsoft's or Sony's boxes, because by then they'll have been so distracted as to lose their only competitive advantage, and Sony and Microsoft will NOT be beat on their home turf.
Nintendo may fail, their revolution may not succeed. It may even be coopted by Sony or Microsoft. But if that's the case, then Nintendo will have failed trying to win, trying to be unique and different and successful. They will not have failed with a retooled XBox360 on their hands and bereft of the deceny or innovation that sets them apart from Sony or Microsoft. They will have failed doing what they do best: developing innovating gameplay instead of following the consumer heartless, electronic and entertainment center bandwagon.
Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Arbok on May 19, 2005, 02:37:12 PM
Although their massive debt doesn't appear to be slowing them down at all... *shrugs*
Post by: Kairon on May 19, 2005, 02:41:49 PM
Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Artimus on May 19, 2005, 02:55:25 PM
There are a couple quotes I want to highlight from the Shiggy interview:
Quote
However, the way that [Sony and Microsoft] are planning on implementing [cutting edge] technology is obviously very different from the route that we're going to be taking. On the business side of things I see where we're going and I see where they're going and I'm not worried at all. I don't think it's going to influence us at all. We're good to go.
...
We're kind of in a strange period where power is the crux of whether or not something is going to be successful. So again, that seems a little bit odd. If we rely solely on power of console to dictate to where we're going with games, I think that tends to suppress the creativity of designers. They tend to rely solely on what the technology allows them to do instead of thinking of new and creative ideas.
The way we are approaching the development of Revolution is we pose the questions to ourselves: why is the home console necessary? What functions in a home console would make everyone in the family say, "Yeah, we need that and want that." We pose those questions and the answers to those questions are what's guiding our development.
...
You know, in regard to the power of the Nintendo Revolution versus, say, the Xbox 360, we're looking at making a small, quiet, affordable console. If you look at trying to incorporate all that, of course we might not have the horsepower that some other companies have, but if you look at the numbers that they're throwing out, are those numbers going to be used in-game? I mean, those are just numbers that somebody just crunched up on a calculator. We could throw out a bunch of numbers, too, but what we're going to do is wait until our chips are done and we're going to find out how everything in the game is running, what its peak performance is, and those are the numbers that we're going to release because those are the numbers that really count.
I do think it's very irresponsible for people to say, "This is what we're running on. This is the power of our machine," when they're not even running on final boards. I think the professional's job is to not believe those numbers.
I'm really going to be fascinated to see what they have. But it really seems like Nintendo has no interest in the same industry that Sony and Microsoft do. Perhaps it's time people stopped considering Nintendo a player in the market the way the other two do. I don't think Nintendo considers themselves one...But if you look at it, it does make sense. Nintendo's president is Satoru Iwata. He's the guy who helped maked the original Super Smash Bros. He's not a business man or a coprorate guy, he's a game maker. You don't see Bill Gates giddily gloating about beating Reggie in Smash Bros. If you watch the conference there's a moment when he says "Smash Bros. is mine" because it is indeed, his game. There's a certain pride in that statement that you don't see in the other two conferences. With the other two it's "Look how cool this tech demo is!" "Look how powerful this is!" or "Look how many online features we have!". The pride is in the tech and systems. With Nintendo it's in the games.
I think we're entering a generation where purchasing a Revolution will explicitly mean something different than purchasing a Playstation or XBOX. While you'll still have the main third party franchises, there will be perhaps fewer ports to Revolution. You'll be buying it for a certain type of game. This is why the inexpensive comment raises my attention. If the Revolution launches at $150 and is tiny (maybe $200 is more realistic) why should we all be buying it as well as a PS3 or 360? Videogames have always been three things: PC, console or handheld. Is it time we started splitting console into two? If the Rev is cheap and entirely unique, why should we expect it to have the same games as the other two? In that sense maybe Nintendo is making the most brilliant marketing decision ever here. Maybe they figured out that fighting the infinite MS and Sony will essentially lead to a lot of money wasted. Maybe instead they're going to stay a game company and start making pure game systems that they're going to market to a different audience. It's actually an intelligent idea from a business standpoint.
I guess what I'm trying to say is maybe Nintendo doesn't want people to ask "Should I buy a PS3, XBOX360 or Revolution?" but instead ask "Should I get PS3 or XBOX360?" while owning a Revolution for a whole other reason. And, if the price is right it could just work.
Post by: anubis6789 on May 19, 2005, 02:58:57 PM
Regarding Kairon's post, I think you are correct on so many levels it is scary. One thing that I think Nintendo might be trying to do with the Revolution, besides courting non-gamers, is try and get small developers to make games for the system. In a way I think Nintendo wants to create a more acessable Yaroze.
Post by: Ian Sane on May 19, 2005, 03:01:35 PM
Bullsh!t. Nintendo can. They've make better games than Sony and MS do. They've got the technical know-how to make both a powerful and well designed console. They make better quality hardware than anyone else. They have more experience. They've made four consoles. They've had over 20 years (Famicom in 1983) of experience in making consoles and by now should have a pretty good idea of what works and what doesn't. They also have a huge ass chunk of money. Not comparibly to Microsoft's but it's big nonetheless and they have no debt or a higher up corporation that can cut their legs out from under them when they don't make a profit. Unlike Sony and MS the heads of Nintendo's console division have complete control over the whole company.
Nintendo's failure to compete with Sony and Microsoft is entirely because they are a bunch of stubborn jerks who refuse to ever admit when they're wrong, hate sharing money with anyone else, and insist on doing things their way whether the market wants it or not. Sony didn't beat Nintendo. Nintendo beat themselves. It was using a cartridge format on the N64 that screwed them over. They chose to ignore where the market was going and did their own thing and they paid for it. Sony didn't do anything exceptional they just didn't screw up and Nintendo did. It's the same with the Cube. Nintendo screwed up a lot of stuff while Sony and MS didn't.
Nintendo chose to not go online until now. Nintendo chooses to not make more mature games. They choose to screw over third parties. The pit Nintendo is in is because of their attitude.
IfyYou took someone who isn't a stubborn jackass and gave him complete control over Nintendo, they could compete. Same development teams, same money, same technical development guys, etc without the stubborn jackass attitude and they could not only compete they could kick ass.
They've got the ability. They just choose not to use it.
Post by: jasonditz on May 19, 2005, 03:13:27 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
I believe a more appropriate word is resources. Nintendo has money because they've been frugal and they keep it liquid. Sony has their money tied up in all sorts of different departments and entertainment ventures, all very multi-disciplinary resources that Nintendo cannot emulate and that Sony can easily bring to bear (i.e. Blu-ray DVD). Anyone know the net worth of Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo so we can do a comparison? lol.
Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Market Capitalization:
Microsoft = $280 Billion
Sony = $37 Billion
Nintendo = $14.7 Billion
Post by: Artimus on May 19, 2005, 03:16:44 PM
Quote
Nintendo's failure to compete with Sony and Microsoft is entirely because they are a bunch of stubborn jerks who refuse to ever admit when they're wrong, hate sharing money with anyone else, and insist on doing things their way whether the market wants it or not.
You need to take a step back and get some perspective. I've never once seen a Nintendo employee be a jerk. Nintendo has admitted their mistakes. Perhaps you just need to realize they have different goals than you do? Maybe you should consider owning two systems this generation?
Your last comment had some merit. Maybe they don't WANT to compete in the power-house multimedia station? Perhaps they want to make good games that you can get inexpensively on their system. Perhaps we should be focusing on the flaws in their games, not their market strategy. Because what they do they do well. I think half the reason people are so disappointed in Nintendo is because they expect the impossible. Zelda scores 95% on GameRankings and people are pissed because it's tiku tiku tiku! and drove adults away. People are mad for what it isn't and totally ignore it's one of the generation's highest rated games. There are certain problems with them not innovating their series (Mario Kart, for example) but overall Nintendo games are as good as ever. Perhaps it's time we stopped treating Nintendo like a stubborn God and start treating them like a compnay that makes great games?
Post by: Kairon on May 19, 2005, 03:23:31 PM
They CANNOT compete technologically, as evidenced by the fact that they now completely rely on IBM and ATI. Even their NES was underpowered compared to competition, their GB, and perhaps even their SNES. Besides that, NO ONE in Nintendo has any in-depth experience in the computer industry. Nintendo is nothing more than a big software maker who makes hardware as a way to spur on software innovation, they are completely inexperienced in cutting edge technology and couldn't even hope to conceive of something like the CELL chip, which, Sony as a huge consumer electronics company, can.
Every single Nintendo console from the Gamecube on is second-hand technology that they have to pay even more money to Matsushita and ATI to throw in.
They CANNOT make better games, at least in the way market dictates. Third parties weaned on the Super NES can now make games that, for all intents and purposes, REPLACE Nintendo games. People who bought the PS2 DID NOT MISS MARIO. They just bought Jak and Daxter, rachet and Clank, and who knows what else.
They CANNOT capitalize on existing markets such as online connectivity solely because Nintendo can be "replaced" by third parties. This is no longer the age of the single 800 pound ape. This is the age where a Sony specifically tries to counter HALO 2 with a similar game released at that time frame. This is the age where Nintendo does NOT create the best games in genres for many players, and where they will be seen as second-rate. This is the age where Electronic Arts, NOT Nintendo, has the power to say "yea" or "may" to new systems.
They CANNOT hope to rival Sony or MS in terms of resources, no matter how much money they have in the bank. Sony and Microsoft are multidisciplinary companies with their hands in not only gaming and computing, but consumer electronivs, networking, entertainment, movies, etc.
They CANNOT hope to equal their competitors in 3rd party support ever, unless they get the marketshare to prove it. They can't get the marketshare without 3rd party support. No matter how much they beg, or pay, or bribe, or deal, they can never rely on 3rd parties.
That's why Nintendo is doing what they're doing now.
They're saying: Our online will be seamless, cheap and/or free, and will have a catalogue of old Nintendo games. Sony or MS can't compete on that last point.
They're saying that they need to create new gameplay experiences that are outside of the normal realm of gaming, such as Nintendogs and whatever else may come down the pipe, online or not. Sony or MS are completely ignoring that market. (well, not MS, they're including Solitaire Hearts and Backgammon with the XBOX360 I hear.)
They're saying that they need to CHANGE the nature of the game market and industry.
Because under the current way the game industry works, Nintendo CANNOT succeed. The current game industry is perfect for companies like MS or Sony, and suicide for Nintendo. That's why their code name is revolution: the only way they CAN succeed is to change the rules, so that what dictates success aren't the issues that Sony or MS are strong at, but instead the issues that play to Nintendo's strengths.
Basically put, Nintendo is trying for a revolution because they ARE NOT COMPETITIVE in the current videogame imarket. They need to change the environment around them, or die a slow death.
Carmine M. red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Artimus on May 19, 2005, 03:27:11 PM
Post by: Kairon on May 19, 2005, 03:29:13 PM
Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Artimus on May 19, 2005, 03:33:52 PM
I should also add I think the Revolution may last beyond five years, unless there is a real technology leap.
Post by: jasonditz on May 19, 2005, 03:36:28 PM
The N64 used cartridges because at the time there was no other way to produce an affordable console that could produce the kind of 3D games they wanted to make. Load times and memory restrictions would have made Mario 64 and OOT impossible. They saw the FMV-laden games that the Sega CD and the CD-i and the 3DO produced and said "that's not where we want to go".
Maybe it was a financial mistake... maybe if they'd stuck with the SNES-CD addon from Sony they'd still be the market leader. But they wouldn't have made the games they wanted to make.
And maybe what they're doing now is a mistake. Maybe cookie cutter consoles that offer higher power and little else is the way things are going. Maybe 10 years from now we'll all be sitting here playing GTA5 on PS4s in full, realtime photorealistic splendor. Maybe shooting whores and jacking cars in an ever more realistic manner is where we're heading, and Nintendo is making a huge mistake swimming against the current.
Maybe Nintendo does need to follow the trends. Maybe Peach needs to get raped by Bowser on camera in the next Mario game. Maybe Link needs to be addicted to heroin. Maybe we need some full frontal nudity in the next metroid.
But would it still be Nintendo anymore?
Post by: PaLaDiN on May 19, 2005, 04:13:14 PM
I should probably drop the Ianspeak for a while and say that I personally don't care that much if Nintendo's making the console only for themselves. But we all want the Rev to be perfect in just about every way. He's got a point... I do want to know that third parties not only are developing but actually want to develop for the Rev, and Nintendo's low power comments aren't helping sustain that impression.
Post by: Kairon on May 19, 2005, 04:16:11 PM
Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: jasonditz on May 19, 2005, 04:24:53 PM
My dream would be to see them release 50 quality 1st or 2nd party titles a year. A key acquisition or two (Capcom) and some good hirings for new in-house studios and that's very doable.
Post by: Arbok on May 19, 2005, 04:42:17 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: jasonditz
My dream would be to see them release 50 quality 1st or 2nd party titles a year. A key acquisition or two (Capcom) and some good hirings for new in-house studios and that's very doable.
I'd love that too, but it seems to be the opposite of what Nintendo is aiming for right now. Honestly, if Capcom, Namco, and Nintendo merged, I would say "to hell" with third part support all around. Is it likely? No, Nintendo appears to be going more for smaller developers with their current strategy. Perhaps looking for the next "Creatures" with their success on creating the Pokémon concept.
Post by: Artimus on May 19, 2005, 04:44:25 PM
1. If the N64 had been more like the PSX, would the games have been as good? NO!
2. If the GCN had played DVDs would the games have been better? NO!
The issue is entirely third party. The question is basically this:
If Nintendo has an idea they really really love, and have brilliant ideas for it, but it won't be compatible with the average PS3/360 EA games because it's a different direction, and having both possible would literally triple the price to so much it has to be either or, which would you choose?
I'd choose Nintendo. Why? I can get PS3 if I want the other games. Nintendo will never stop making games, even if one day they end up third party. But right now they have no reason to. Even if they only sell 20 million per generation there's no reason why they should stop.
Post by: Ian Sane on May 19, 2005, 06:02:28 PM
Why not? The Gamecube could compete with the Xbox and it had some big advantages. It had incredibly quick load times for example. It could go online, Nintendo just chose not to. The graphic capabilities are there. Look at Metroid Prime, Rogue Leader, SSBM, Resident Evil 4, and Zelda: Twilight Princess. Nintendo just chose to for whatever reason completely half-ass all their Mario games graphically and thus create the impression that the hardware wasn't up to snuff. If the Rev is really underpowered there's no excuse. Nintendo could compete on a hardware front with the Gamecube they can do it with the Rev. It's their choice if they're going to mess it up. And it's their choice to push the hardware to it's limits. They're doing with Zelda so we know they can.
"They CANNOT make better games, at least in the way market dictates."
Yes they can. They made some of the best games of this generation. It's their choice to release a crappy Mario Party game every year and to farm out their franchises to every developer they meet. Nintendo doesn't make bad games. They just sometimes choose to make games no one would be interested in. Again that's their choice. They don't have to release four Mario games a year or turn Zelda into a cartoon. The quality of their games is through the roof. It always has been. If they want to compete they just have to lay off all the Mario spinoffs and endless sequels. They have to balance their lineup more so that it's more 50/50 between family friendly and more mature, as opposed to the 90/10 split they have now. They have to provide more variety. Why is Camelot working on more Mario sports junk when they have a reputation for RPGs? Why is Intelligent Systems working on another Paper Mario game instead of a console Advance Wars or Fire Emblem (well they're working on Fire Emblem but it took like four years for Nintendo to clue in)? Why is HAL working on a one button Kirby game that no sane human being would be interested in? Why are Sega and Namco contracted to make more Nintendo sequels instead of something different? They've got the talent. They just choose to make more Mario games instead of providing a more balanced lineup.
"They CANNOT capitalize on existing markets such as online connectivity solely because Nintendo can be 'replaced' by third parties."
I don't get what you're saying here. How are they replaced?
"They CANNOT hope to rival Sony or MS in terms of resources, no matter how much money they have in the bank."
I'll give you this one but it's not like they're poor or anything. I don't need Nintendo to throw buckets of money at everything. They still have more resources than they act like. It's like if it will take in any initial loss whatsoever they won't do it. They're cheap. They try to rip off developers and customers. If they stopped doing that things would improve.
"They CANNOT hope to equal their competitors in 3rd party support ever, unless they get the marketshare to prove it."
But they can increase their market share by being more aggressive and being more competent. It's not an overnight thing. They can still improve things by, I don't know, not treating third parties like crap. There's no excuse why they always have higher licencing fees. That's just common sense. It has nothing to do with Sony being a genius. And they made some deals with third parties on the Cube that could have done great but Nintendo goofed them up with their dumb choices. They published a Square game but they stupidly insisted on it having connectivity so we got something crappy. They had Sega and Namco working on games but they had them work on Nintendo games thus completely nullifying the point of third party support. I don't expect them to match Sony right away but they can do much better if they pull their head out of their ass.
I don't think Nintendo can become number one overnight. But they can improve. They can increase their market share for once. I think they could even beat Microsoft. They just have to stop doing stupid sh!t. Most of Nintendo's problems are caused by their own dumb mistakes. Stop being an idiot and things should improve.
Post by: jasonditz on May 19, 2005, 06:14:05 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"They CANNOT compete technologically"
I'll give you this one but it's not like they're poor or anything. I don't need Nintendo to throw buckets of money at everything. They still have more resources than they act like. It's like if it will take in any initial loss whatsoever they won't do it. They're cheap. They try to rip off developers and customers. If they stopped doing that things would improve.
I don't know about you, but I bought a Cube like 6 months after launch, and never once did I feel ripped off.
Post by: Savior on May 19, 2005, 06:14:32 PM
Post by: Artimus on May 19, 2005, 06:18:39 PM
You want Nintendo games on a Playstation, essentially.
Post by: nemo_83 on May 19, 2005, 06:22:07 PM
Sony also relies on its larger arms within the company to support what has become the face of Sony, the Playstation brand. Sony's game devision has only directly generated four billion dollars in profts for Sony since 98. But the brand has extended the sells of many of their other more profitable products. PS acts like an all day advertisement for the brand name Sony and that is what MS is trying to do. Either that or MS is just trying to hurt Sony and Nintendo just because they themselves can't have any pie.
Nintendo is all game devision. Everything about their company revolves around the games and the hardware they make. And Nintendo has generated seven billion dollars since 98.
Post by: jasonditz on May 19, 2005, 06:22:44 PM
Post by: Arbok on May 19, 2005, 06:23:26 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Artimus
You want Nintendo games on a Playstation, essentially.
Who doesn't want that? Nintendo's great first party games with a huge array of third party games? Although personally I would want the Playstation games on a Nintendo system, instead of the other way around.
Post by: Ian Sane on May 19, 2005, 06:30:03 PM
I want to see Nintendo give it their all. I don't want to see Nintendo half-ass the Gamecube and then "quit" because they don't feel like putting in any real effort.
Post by: jasonditz on May 19, 2005, 06:43:30 PM
There was nothing wrong with the N64. It was far superior to the Playstation, and that wouldn't have been possible if they'd gone with CDs.
Post by: Savior on May 19, 2005, 06:47:22 PM
Post by: nemo_83 on May 19, 2005, 06:48:31 PM
Many 360 and PS3 fans are talking about how REV is the ultimate secondary system, but they fail to realize that if everyone, regardless of whether they own a 360 or PS3 owns a REV then REV is nolonger the secondary system. It becomes the system everyone owns no matter if they have the faith in Sony to drop a thousand dollars on a PS3 in spite of the fact it may break down or if they bought a $360 360 because if you have that kind of cash sitting around for games you are hardcore, crazy, or rich and you are going to buy more than one system. Nintendo can have a real price advantage this time.
They just have to deliver a controller that revolutionizes gameplay now. Something that breaths new life into playing any old 2D or 3D game they have released between the NES and Cube.
Post by: Ian Sane on May 19, 2005, 06:49:01 PM
Yes there was. It used a cartridge format that completely KILLED Nintendo's third party support. Do you think the third parties would all gone to Sony if Nintendo, the then market leader, used CDs as well? Square, Capcom, & Enix were all loyal to Nintendo and would have stayed loyal if the N64 used CDs and thus could provide them with the medium they needed to make their games. You're a dillusional fanboy if you think that going with cartridges wasn't the stupidest thing Nintendo ever did.
Post by: jasonditz on May 19, 2005, 07:11:32 PM
Post by: Strell on May 19, 2005, 07:19:08 PM
The problem with Nintendo "carving out a niche" and "attacking the industry from another angle" and all these other nice terms for "choosing to not compete" are nice and all, but they are just happy, and false, sentiments that we, the fans of Nintendo, are trying to desperately graft onto our image of the company. It's like a sweet comfort - a way to tell ourselves that "Yes, if Nintendo realizes they can't compete, they'll still find a way."
That's nice and all but it doesn't work for the main reason that this is industry. It's industry. It's f*cking industry. You can't sit around and hope that you'll create a brand new niche. It's hard to do, it always has been. And Nintendo seems to satisfy themselves knowing that they can always appeal to certain groups of gamers (and non-gamers) instead of the broad picture.
That's the damn problem. That's the damn problem in a nutshell. Why? Because you can't really survive doing that. Why? Because people hate buying a new system every five years as is. How many damn times have you heard someone "GOD, EVERYTIME I BUY A SYSTEM, THEY JUST MAKE A NEW ONE, AND I GET TIRED OF BUYING THEM."
Nintendo at this point is satisfying themselves by thinking "yea, neat, we can make a system that will do x. X has never been done before. But let's limit ourselves and our potentials by making our system underpowered, and when we get another new great idea, we'll just release another system."
That doesn't cut it in the real world. People want a new system to last. At the current rate of technology, with the bigger leaps coming faster and faster, people are realizing that they are having to buy stuff faster. Where it was once 7 years, it's then 6. Then 5. Now 4. We are at 4, people. We are at f*cking four.
Nintendo is sitting back right now and telling us "well we can make a smaller, less powerful system, make the controller super neat, and give people old games." That makes them happy because it gives them a level of mystery, it reinforces the idea that they are innovators, and it gives them the possibility to make HUGE profits on old games.
But what happens when the 720/PS4 come out? Does Nintendo release a system that's as powerful as the 360/PS3 and tell us "well it will do this as well, something never done before" and expect us to be happy?
Gaming has far in the last few years and the userbase has grown SIGNIFICANTLY, and like it or not, the casual is the majority. And what does the casual do? They don't argue on net websites. They don't know E3 is going on. They are people like my dad opening up the newspaper and reading bullsh*t like "MICROSOFT TO CHANGE THE FACE OF GAMING," and other such nonsense. They see the numbers - 100 hojillion polygons on 3 processors - and that sticks. Big = better. That's the American mentality. Hell, HALO gets time in papers. Grand Theft Auto gets time in papers. MARIO DOESN'T. ZELDA DOESN'T. And I'm near the Houston chronicle, one of the biggest papers in the nation, possibly the world, and so you HAVE to be big to get into that periodical. But Nintendo hardly gets in there, they end up on page 8, with Iwata holding the Revolution, where as Gates was on page 1 and had instant recognition. People are going "WHO IS THIS ASIAN DOOD" and not caring much more beyond that. "Nintendo," like it or not, doesn't have the ring it used to. It doesn't command the recognition. My dad knows more about the Xbox 360. And this is a man who doesn't know sh*t about sh*t in terms of the game industry (not meant to be an insult, just calling out that's the typical, casual person - he only knows the big things, not the little).
In addition to all of this, Nintendo choosing to be underpowered on PURPOSE poses a huge threat to them because of third parties. Is their answer to no 3rd party support, or dwindling, crappy support at best, to allow people to get old games? I mean, is that it? "Here's this huge old library, take your pick for a small price." ???? Wtf. PEOPLE WANT NEW SH*T. And if EA games is developing Madden 23 (and at the g*****n rate they are going, they might as well release 4 Madden iterations a year) for the Xbox 360 and the PS3, which are pretty comparable in the graphics game and I highly doubt EA will make optimizations for each system individually, it's going to PISS THEM THE HELL OFF to think "Well f*ck, we have to make it for the Rev too, but we need to scale the graphics back by about 40%."
That's huge, people. It's going to piss off EA. What about Konami? Capcom? Ubisoft? If mature games are selling like crap as is on the Gamecube, and if they CAN NOT shake this tiku tiku tiku! image, and casual people are NOT aware of what is going on with the REV, and if they are SICK of buying systems over and over, and they want something that will LAST for a few years before they have to plunge AGAIN, and if the Rev has crappy looking games,
ALL OF THAT IS GOING TO HURT NINTENDO.
But Nintendo is so BLINDED by the idea that Nintendogs selling well in Japan is indicative that there's all these vast, untapped wells of gamers, just waiting for someone to shove a hose up their asses and suck out gobs of money.
I don't buy it. I think the game industry is not going to continue to grow. No industry can. It crashed once in the US already, and I'll be damned if it doesn't do it again. And right now Nintendo can't sit back and tell itself there's no invisible ceiling, because there is, and pretending that it's not there is going to ruin you in the end.
How are third parties reacting to this nonsense about power? My guess is that they are groaning. They don't want to write this brilliant engine and then have to scale it back for the Rev. And so they'll look at userbase sizes and they'll pick and choose what is best. My honest guess is that 360 and PS3 will be far closer this time around, given the name recognition of Halo and the headstart by Microsoft. And if that's the case, if Nintendo's userbase isn't comparable to the sizes of MS and Sony, third parties will drop ship FAR faster than the Gamecube and N64 saw. At least with the GC, if you took the GC and optimized it, it looked as good, if not better, than either the Xbox or the PS2.
I am not a graphics whore. But guess what - normal people are. And normal people are running the damn game here. Companies respond to normal gamers. This is why Prince of Persia looks like a douchebag now. This is why Grand Theft Auto is so popular. This is why Halo, despite being a mediocre game at best when compared to PC FPS games, is the king of console FPSs. And companies will CONTINUE to follow those mentalities set by the majority - bigger, bagger, meaner, gorier.
And by the time Nintendo finally gives into this, it will be too late.
I think the Rev can survive, but barely. And I think the moment Nintendo starts having unprofitable quarters, they'll rethink what they did and spank themselves.
Ok, I'm through playing devil's advocate for now. I hate reading and writing this stuff myself, because I so desperately want Nintendo to succeed. If they can do it in other markets and with new people, fine. But they are not, NOT, it looks like, even trying to compete with Sony and MS. I fully believe that graphics will quickly fade as the buzzword and the benchmark, but given that right now they ARE the end-all-be-all argument, whether us internet-goers know it or not, Nintendo CAN NOT afford to piss around with this "we'll still do our own thing" sh*t.
Get with the program, Nintendo. Either get your system out fast, launch with an array of must-have games, or beef up the performance. You have every chance to get your ass in gear. You've HAD every chance.
Please, PLEASE re-think this decision. You can't float your own system anymore. You just can't.
Post by: Artimus on May 19, 2005, 07:33:02 PM
Nintendo didn't shoot themselves in the foot so much as Sony appealed to the wallets of game developers. Since then the problems have only gotten worse as the trench deepends. As far as Silicon Knights go I think it's more a matter of Nintendo not wanting to fund an insanely expensive game that's going to be a huge flop. Mistake? Yeah, from our perspective. But not from a business perspective. Nintendo has only made mistakes if you consider Sony and MS to be right in their approach. To be honest, online is the only major (non-marketing/system colour) mistake Nintendo made this generation. The smaller disks cut load times to almost nil, and still allowed for games like RE4 and soon to be Zelda, so any size issues are really due to extraneous FMV. The no DVD playback makes it an exceptionally affordable system, and within like a year of launch everyone had a standalone player anyway! Anyone using a PS2 or XBOX for movies right now is getting a crappy player. From the consumer's perspective Nintendo was the one looking at their interest.
The odd thing is that Nintendo has made almost every decision (except online and their formerly sucky marketing) for the gamer. This idea that they've made mistakes is completely and totally biased. The cost of the PS2 and XBOX was stupid, really. Nintendo went with a better price, better load times and the easiest to develop for, yet still almost the most powerful, system. Why did they lose for the second time? Because the PlayStation brand, and because XBOX had the cool image.
Nintendo has paid because they're a games only company. It sounds like right now they're fed up with losing for that and are going to start playing on their own terms. Will third parties release their games on the Revolution? I doubt the support will be any greater than the GCN. But Nintendo believes in their games and chooses to make the games they want to instead of catering to moronic forces like EA, which are killing the strengths of the industry with crap like their exclusive sports deals. Sony and Microsoft make their money by licensing fees and popularity. Nintendo makes it by selling games. If Nintendo made a system like the PS3 and released it, and it had the third party games, then obviously the Nintendo games would not be what they wanted to be. Goldeneye on the PSX would not have been as good. Ocarina of Time would not have been as good. The N64 was a BETTER SYSTEM when it comes to actually playing games. Nintendo is notoriously tight with their money, but they're also all about creativity. EA sure isn't.
Nintendo has some idea that is exactly what they want to do. Would they love to see other people embrace it too? Yes. Just because PS3 has more third party titles doesn't mean it's better for the gamer. Instead of being mad at Nintendo, maybe we should be mad at the third parties. Afterall, do we REALLY need another Madden? Should the industry not be "innovation as well as your favorites" and not "your favorites as well as innovation"? Why should we assume the PS3 is better for games? Maybe Nintendo is right and if developers actually got into the Revolution more than the other two systems the games would be better. The point is that Nintendo is doing what it can to make the best games it can. If it was as simple as pie to win developers it'd be done. Obviously the third parties want something different than Nintendo. Asking Nintendo to cater to them defeats the entire purpose of being Nintendo.
Post by: ABlueflameA on May 19, 2005, 07:35:44 PM
As far as horsepower, I think that you're all really going overboard. So what if Sony can push (and Im making these numbers up, dont shoot me, they are merely examples)
ok, back on to my thought
so what if sony can push 20 million poly's in a realistic game setting
so what if xbox pushes 18 million poly's in the same setting
will you be able to notice if Revolution pushes 17 million polys?
Hell, I thought that Resident Evil 4 looked better than some of the Xbox 360 games I saw today. That was Gamecube vs. Xbox 360. And for all the "horsepower" its only as much as developers can use, or want to use. Sure they could have 30 layers of textures, lighting, shading, bump maps, etc... on everything, but its just not very cost-effective or time effective.
The games industry will grow in dollar amounts more so than it will in numbers of games or consoles. In game advertising especially will increase exponentially. Prices of games will go up, and indeed have already started to go up. Next-gen consoles may cost more than previous generation consoles. More pay services and games online. More movies based off of games **shudders**.
Raw power doesn't matter as much as you think it does when there's something to offset it. At E3 sure I saw a good number of PSP's, but I saw at least double that number of DS's. I saw people just amazed that you could (and I did) download demos and movie clips and screen shots wirelessly. Pictochat was used wherever there was a line for something with more than a handful of people in it. Sure it might not look as pretty as PSP games, but they still look good, they play good, they're innovative but most importantly, they're fun! I'll never forget when my friend got to the candlestick level in Feel The Magic and I had to tell him to blow on the DS after he tried hitting every button and touching the screen. His face was a picture of pure "shock and awe".
I'm happy that Nintendo is doing what its doing. I don't care if they lose a lot of 3rd party support. I'll buy revolution just for Nintendo Games and their 2nd party games. I'll see you on Smash Brothers Revolution the day it comes out.
-Blueflame
Post by: jasonditz on May 19, 2005, 07:36:09 PM
If graphics are the end-all-be-all argument, why is the DS outselling the PSP worldwide?
Post by: oohhboy on May 19, 2005, 07:42:02 PM
But the PSX with it's CDs gave an illiusion of having big, badder graphics. Any of you remember the comerials of the day? Pure FMV. One could say not much has changed, but that is not the point. The point is most people have poor BS meters. Humans must catalog and label everything. Nintendo offers the intangilable, everyone else offers the an image, a label .
The NES was technologicaly superior to the Sega Master system as was the SNES to the Mega Drive. The GCN was and is superior to the PS2, but with a suprise showing from Micosoft had jumped that edge that Nintendo had planned for. Under Yamuchi, Nintendo had always planned to have a technological edge. I believe this may still remain true even though Yamuchi left te presidentcy years ago and the board only as of late. Being a company of programmers instead of techno-freaks allows them to create efficent hardware already demostrated by the GCN.
Let the others play with their smoke and mirrors. I won't be buying anything next gen if no one of the companies pull something out of the hat. Although playing every single classic game is tempting, not quite what I am looking for in a console.
Post by: Ian Sane on May 19, 2005, 07:46:56 PM
This bring up an interesting question. How well would Nintendo do if their console had literally no third party support? The Cube and N64 didn't have very good third party support but it was there. What if it was nothing but Nintendo's games? Literally one title every two months. Literally a library of less than 30 games. Would Nintendo fans buy it? Would enough people put up with that kind of dismal support for Nintendo to make their precious profit? I don't think so. And that's where Nintendo is headed if they don't watch it. Third party support is getting worse. If it was leveled off that would be okay but Nintendo's market share keeps shrinking so the third party support is as well. If Nintendo makes no effort to improve or in fact makes thing LESS enticing for third parties then eventually third party support will be gone. And then when they realize they're not making any profit anymore how can they come back? They can't. Not even their loyal fans will be there anymore. That's why Nintendo has to compete. Because they can't shrink their market share every gen and still make a profit. That's a doomed strategy. Eventually they will fail with that mentality.
Post by: dafunkk12 on May 19, 2005, 07:54:09 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: ABlueflameA
I'll never forget when my friend got to the candlestick level in Feel The Magic and I had to tell him to blow on the DS after he tried hitting every button and touching the screen. His face was a picture of pure "shock and awe".
"The candle blowing game," as I refer to it, has never failed me on selling people (especially non-gamers) on the possibilities of the DS.
Post by: majortom1981 on May 19, 2005, 08:28:32 PM
Doesnt that sound familiar. hmmm LOOOL
Post by: PaLaDiN on May 19, 2005, 09:07:01 PM
You're making a point against yourself here. That's an argument against Sony and Microsoft, not Nintendo. Nintendo's trying to change the industry's path and market audience, not stick with the same people while they get progressively more and more specialized and stuck in ruts of only buying specific genres. If you really believe that then Nintendo's doing the right thing.
"How are third parties reacting to this nonsense about power? My guess is that they are groaning. They don't want to write this brilliant engine and then have to scale it back for the Rev. And so they'll look at userbase sizes and they'll pick and choose what is best. My honest guess is that 360 and PS3 will be far closer this time around, given the name recognition of Halo and the headstart by Microsoft. And if that's the case, if Nintendo's userbase isn't comparable to the sizes of MS and Sony, third parties will drop ship FAR faster than the Gamecube and N64 saw. At least with the GC, if you took the GC and optimized it, it looked as good, if not better, than either the Xbox or the PS2."
You make a good point, but there's a flip side to the coin here. They also don't want to write this "brilliant" engine just to harness PS3's and X360's power to the extent that everybody else is. Development costs are rising sharply... I'm willing to bet it's going to be huge problem next gen. You can see it starting to happen now, but sooner or later most games will have to rely on established franchises and/or have multimillion dollar budgets to sell well at all. And once that happens, that's when the industry will crash, because people will start being bored. What Nintendo needs to do is what they're doing... try to change the direction the industry is going in so devs aren't encouraged to make better and better-looking and more and more expensive games. This trend of increasing financial risk and reliability on "safe" franchises has to be bucked.
"I am not a graphics whore. But guess what - normal people are. And normal people are running the damn game here. Companies respond to normal gamers."
Get your terminology straight. Normal "people" are not normal "gamers". They're not the same thing. Normal people don't play games. It's not like movies where pretty much everybody watches them. It's a much more limited group of people paying much more money. Normal people think videogames are toys... and there's really only two ways around that. The first is to stop relying on games and start focusing on and pimping other aspects of the console, to make it a tech toy instead of a game toy. The other is to try and make more people enjoy games. Whether you like it or not, just in order to survive, Nintendo either has to try and capture new gamers or they have to make an entertainment hub. Which would you rather that they did? Why do you think Pokemon was so popular? Do you think the people who bought it classified as normal gamers before it came out? No, these are people who liked the concept so much they became gamers. Look at Nintendogs eating up the charts. Do you have any idea why that's happening? It's because it's something new. Why do you think there's backwards compatibility in the Rev? Because it draws back people who have stopped playing games. It hooks them back in with nostalgia.
Gamers are pissed that Nintendo's trying to appeal to new gamers. But what are the alternatives to avoid a crash? There's only two as far as I can see... either make new kinds of games or shift your focus to something other than games. Which side of the ship do you want Nintendo to jump out of? And as far as I'm concerned, gamers have nothing to be pissed about. Nintendo's not neglecting them. Ian has nightmares of Nintendo moving on from him to his mom and eventual kids, but he's ignoring the simple fact that people expect things from Metroid, Mario and Zelda that Nintendo has no choice but to provide, and guess what? Nintendo's making Metroid, Zelda and Mario next gen.
"This is why Prince of Persia looks like a douchebag now. This is why Grand Theft Auto is so popular. This is why Halo, despite being a mediocre game at best when compared to PC FPS games, is the king of console FPSs. And companies will CONTINUE to follow those mentalities set by the majority - bigger, bagger, meaner, gorier."
I don't think you get it. The majority is dwindling. What's happening in Japan is going to happen here. Count on it. The symptoms are there.
"And by the time Nintendo finally gives into this, it will be too late."
If Nintendo "gives into this" in the first place, they will be accelerating a process that will lead to their fiery demise. They'll be fully engaged in a war of shorter and shorter console life cycles and more and more expensive graphical prowess that will KILL THE INDUSTRY. Don't you get it? The industry is becoming a better and better-looking one-trick pony. Sony knows this, Microsoft knows this. They're turning their consoles into something else that also happens to play games. Are you deaf or did you not hear Microsoft when they frigging outright admitted as much?
"I think the Rev can survive, but barely. And I think the moment Nintendo starts having unprofitable quarters, they'll rethink what they did and spank themselves."
And the day that happens, I'll stop playing games. Nintendo's already given into the asinine online demands. They've already taken a couple of steps into MS and Sony territory, and it thoroughly and completely pisses me off.
"Ok, I'm through playing devil's advocate for now. I hate reading and writing this stuff myself, because I so desperately want Nintendo to succeed. If they can do it in other markets and with new people, fine. But they are not, NOT, it looks like, even trying to compete with Sony and MS. I fully believe that graphics will quickly fade as the buzzword and the benchmark, but given that right now they ARE the end-all-be-all argument, whether us internet-goers know it or not, Nintendo CAN NOT afford to piss around with this "we'll still do our own thing" sh*t."
Graphics are only the be-and-end-all to people who ALREADY play games, and only the ones seeking a quick aesthetic thrill at that. These are not the people needs to appeal to in order to save the industry. This stupid mentality is what's ruining it in the first place.
Post by: Ian Sane on May 19, 2005, 09:22:59 PM
Target gamers who won't stop buying games because of a crash ie: hardcore gamers. People who know what R-Type is and consider 2D as another valid option for game design and have played every Metroid and can indicate what was added to each sequel are not going to contribute to the crash. The gamers who won't stick around are the mainstream types who buy Madden and a different WWII shooter every year. Another group that won't stick around are the non-gamers who for some reason Nintendo sees a need to target. Hardcore gamers are the only ones that will support games forever because they're the only ones who have a legitimate interest in games. They're the only ones who NEED games. The companies that makes games that hardcore gamers like are the ones who will survive. Targeting non-gamers isn't going to avoid a crash. Nintendo's not contributing to a crash. It will happen regardless of what they do. So if Nintendo loses those hardcore gamers by targeting their moms they won't survive the crash. That's the most loyal and thus most important audience. It should be Nintendo's priority and if they go all weird they'll lose that group to Sony and MS.
Post by: Caillan on May 19, 2005, 09:47:25 PM
A lot of my friends have stopped playing games. When one of them saw the new Zelda trailer, he said something to the effect that it was the first time he'd been excited about console gaming in a while. I know two people who are already planning to buy a Cube to get Zelda: that's great but the problem is they don't already have one. They are gamers, and they should, in theory, have been excited by what any of the current consoles have to offer. Considering they aren't, there's definately a fairly large niche that can be filled by something.
That was an extended and roundabout rant, but my point is that Nintendo shouldn't be too afraid to try new things. They might fail, but that's okay: it doesn't mean anything. On the other hand, they could come across something which is both different and very, very good. Judging by Nintendogs and the Famitsu review, they may have done so.
Post by: PaLaDiN on May 19, 2005, 09:47:48 PM
Most hardcore gamers will buy Nintendo consoles for Metroid, Mario and Zelda. I don't think you can really deny that. Nintendo in general is pretty much the company that targets hardcore gamers. The GBA is the only console that still regularly releases 2D games. Sony and Microsoft have not a single franchise that has as much name recognition as Zelda or Mario. It angers me when third parties release hardcore games on other consoles. We're pretty much the console to give those games to... but I guess money talks louder than logic. Hardcore gamers aren't enough... not anymore, not when plenty of them have gotten sick of the industry or "grown up" or changed. And just so you know, Nintendo has done the one best thing they could have done to draw ex-hardcore gamers back in... announce extensive backwards compatibility so they can play all their favorite games just as they remember them.
"The gamers who won't stick around are the mainstream types who buy Madden and a different WWII shooter every year."
Which is who Sony and Microsoft are targeting, as are most third parties nowadays because of the increased need to rely on safe risks.
"Another group that won't stick around are the non-gamers who for some reason Nintendo sees a need to target."
Come on now, Ian. You weren't born a hardcore gamer, you became one. A long time ago you played a game that made you a gamer. Nintendo's trying to do that as much as possible and you're sitting there saying that's a bad idea. Aren't we testaments to the contrary?
"Nintendo's not contributing to a crash. It will happen regardless of what they do. So if Nintendo loses those hardcore gamers by targeting their moms they won't survive the crash. That's the most loyal and thus most important audience."
But by targeting their moms Nintendo could be breeding new hardcore gamers... people who never really gave gaming a chance until they saw a game that grabbed their interest and couldn't get the hooks out afterwards. They're renovating the market, injecting fresh blood so it doesn't keep getting stale. And they're not abandoning their existing hardcore fans either... I guarantee you that they will continue making franchises with traditional gameplay to appeal to those people indefinitely. Don't be paranoid.
"It should be Nintendo's priority and if they go all weird they'll lose that group to Sony and MS."
They wouldn't lose that group to Sony and MS. They'd lose them, period. Those gamers would have nowhere to turn. The market would no longer exist... instead there would be the Microsoft WindowsHDTV2Box and Sony Interactive Music and Movie System which sporadically spit out the next FPS masterpiece and sports extravaganza.
Post by: Mario on May 19, 2005, 09:49:33 PM
Post by: Famicom on May 19, 2005, 09:56:26 PM
But tis a pipe dream. That's too much American thinking for a Japanese centric company.
Post by: Ian Sane on May 19, 2005, 10:02:40 PM
Yeah but that's not enough. I still own every game I've ever owned. There are very few SNES games for example that I want but don't own. I'll probably never use Nintendo's download service. I like the concept but I'm not going to buy a new console for it. Hardcore gamers will like it but that alone isn't going to grab them.
"You weren't born a hardcore gamer, you became one. A long time ago you played a game that made you a gamer."
Yes. But Nintendo didn't alienate existing gamers to get me hooked.
"Most hardcore gamers will buy Nintendo consoles for Metroid, Mario and Zelda. I don't think you can really deny that. Nintendo in general is pretty much the company that targets hardcore gamers."
Nintendo does a pretty good job but they fail at not providing options. Hardcore gamers want to be able to play all genres and go online and use high end audio and video equipment. Nintendo didn't provide that with the Cube. Plus sequels are not what grabs hardcore gamers. Good gameplay does. It's just expected that every sequel becomes less essential. There are only so many ways to work a concept and eventually it gets to this point where it's just endless rehashing. Hardcore gamers like Metroid, Mario, and Zelda because they're amazing. They don't like them just because of the franchise. Case in point hardcore gamers hate Mario Party because it's the same stuff again and again. So the franchises will draw the hardcore as long as the quality remains. But the quality can't remain if they rely too much on sequels. It just logically can't stay high forever. So they need new stuff as well.
Though I would say right now the hardcore console is the PS2. Sure it has a lot a mainstream junk but it has the options. The PS2 lineup is full of hardcore games. There aren't any SNK fighters Nippon Ichi RPGs on the Cube for example.
Post by: anubis6789 on May 19, 2005, 10:12:14 PM
I believe a crash will happen, it is inevitable, and Nintendo is trying to set itself up to weather that coming storm. So are MS and Sony, they are going towards the media box direction. Infact the only people that look like they are not ready are most third parties.
I also don't call myself a hardcore gamer anymore because I have come to find out that anyone who does is an elitist, and if there is one thing the gaming industry does not need its them.
Post by: PaLaDiN on May 19, 2005, 10:15:37 PM
The whole point is that they're trying to make new stuff and you're writing it off as them trying to grab moms. They're trying to make a new controller and you're freaking out that it might screw up existing games. You demand change but at the same time you're seemingly one of the people the most resistant to change I've ever met.
You do have a point about options though... I see where you're coming from with that one, and I hope Nintendo's listening, but I have no idea how they can do that without doing what Sony and Microsoft are doing, and I'm opposed to that.
Post by: Kairon on May 19, 2005, 11:33:00 PM
Anyways, We HAVE seen Nintendo firing on all cylinders. That was the first 2.5 years of the N64 basically, what with Mario 64, Mario Kart64, StarFox 64, Goldeneye, Mario Party, Zelda and Pokemon. That was the most recent "goldenage" in my memory. And the fact of the matter is that for Nintendo to fire all cylinders they needed cartridges. Load times would've destroyed OoT and Mario 64. Nintendo, at their best, was not and still isn't the common person's idea of smart business. BUT, they'd certainly deserve the description of a develper in a new, albeit short, golden period.
In fact, to see Nintendo not create unique hardware is to see a handicapped Nintendo. They obviously don't believe that software alone is the answer, they need to create hardware that enables software to do new things, via new interfaces and new inputs. To Nintendo, hardware isn't worthwhile because of how many polygons it can pump out, but because of the relationship it can generate between the user and the game.
Nintendo is not JUST a software company. That's why it's unthinkable right now for them to go third party. Interface and ergonomics are as much a part of their gamer creation as the programming. They made the analog stick for Mario 64, the rumble pak for StarFox, 4 controller ports for Mario Kart 64, the "satellite" button setup for the GC controller for games like SSBM or Kirby's Air Ride, the touch screen for the DS and Yoshi's Touch & Go; all hardware innovations that Sony and MS would've taken 20 more years to bring out, they ushred into creation for the sole purpose of furthering their games.
So we've been seeing a Nintendo on full cylinders, making no compromises, putting out the best games they possibly could from Super Mario 64 all the way up to Super Mario Sunshine. (Personally, I feel that with Super Mario Sunshine, and later with (the unfinished) Wind Waker, something happened with Nintendo's internal developmental process that caused them to turn out substandard games)
And they haven't met with a lot of people's approval. *shrug* But again, we all seem to share the same estimation of the common person's ability to judge quality gaming.
Oh, and in response Strell, I don't believe that the malaise about buying a new system every 4 years will be specifically Nintendo's problem. That's purely a problem of technology and it's quick pace, heck, to keep up to date you have to buy a new computer every two years don't you? This will affect the PS3 and XBox 360 equally well (probably a little more the X360 since they're not backwards compatible). Yet this also means that the systems must do more to justify their purchase. I'd like to think that wherefore Sony and X360 are forced to say: "buy our system because it can crunch more polygons" Nintendo might be able to say, "You've never seen anything like this on a system before. Easy backlog of games, innovative controls, new gameplay possibilities, and all at a lower price point." Between the two, Nintendo's would be a more compelling argument to buy a new system every couple of years, much more interesting than "better graphics."
Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Artimus on May 20, 2005, 02:38:42 AM
Post by: Dryden on May 20, 2005, 03:24:43 AM
From Ian: "Though I would say right now the hardcore console is the PS2. Sure it has a lot a mainstream junk but it has the options. The PS2 lineup is full of hardcore games. There aren't any SNK fighters Nippon Ichi RPGs on the Cube for example. "
Careful with a phrase like 'mainstream junk'. I don't care what you say, mainstream games, however often they're repackaged and rereleased, are the reason that the PS2 has excelled. Then they get the 'hardcore' exclusives like SNK.
So, what do you want? Do you want Nintendo to repackage the same games over and over again, and encourage it's partners to do so too, just to get back to the top? Do I really want to see a Mario Sunshine 2? A Wind Waker 2? A Mario Party Sevenevermind... you see my point.
Post by: jasonditz on May 20, 2005, 05:03:09 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"
This bring up an interesting question. How well would Nintendo do if their console had literally no third party support? The Cube and N64 didn't have very good third party support but it was there. What if it was nothing but Nintendo's games? Literally one title every two months. Literally a library of less than 30 games. Would Nintendo fans buy it? Would enough people put up with that kind of dismal support for Nintendo to make their precious profit? I don't think so.
Ohh... literally?
List of current Cube games from Nintendo:
1080 Avalanche
Animal Crossing
Cubivore
Custom Robo
DK: Jungle Beat
Donkey Konga
Donkey Konga 2
Doshin the Giant
Eternal Darkness
F-Zero GX
Final Fantasy CC (done with Nintendo resources)
Kirby Air Ride
Luigi's Mansion
Mario Golf: TT
Mario Kart: DD
Mario Party 4
Mario Party 5
Mario Party 6
Mario Power Tennis
Metroid Prime
Metroid Prime II
MGS: Twin Snakes
NBA Courtside 2002
Pac-Man Vs. (coding done by Nintendo, released by Namco)
Paper Mario: TTYD
Pikmin
Pikmin 2
Pokemon Box
Pokemon Channel
Pokemon Colosseum
Star Fox Adventures
Star Fox Assault
Super Mario Sunshine
Super Smash Bros. Melee
The Legend of Zelda: OOT Master Quest
The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords Adventure
The Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker
Wario Ware Mega
Wario World
Wave Race BS
----
Current List of Cube games upcoming from Nintendo
Geist
Pennant Chase
Advance Wars: Under Fire
The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess
Fire Emblem: PoR
Pokemon xD
DDR: Mario
Mario Soccer
Mario Baseball
Mario Party 7
Odama
That's 40 current titles (The Cube has been out for approx. 42 months) and 11 upcoming titles already announced for the remaining period (probably a little over a year). Its much closer to one game a month.
I don't remember offhand what last year's annual report said Nintendo is shooting for for an overall life of system software-hardware tie in ratio, but I know damned well it was less 50:1
Now looking at this from another angle... people clearly are not buying the Cube for third party titles right now. Looking at sales figures throughout the life of the Cube, we've seen precious few third party titles ever near the top of the sales figures. There've been a couple of exceptions, of course (RE4, SC2), but by and large people are already buying the system almost exclusively for the 1st and 2nd party content.
You're going to have a hard time convincing me that the average Cube owner wouldn't have bought theirs if there was no annual Madden game available, even though most of them don't buy the game in the first place.
Post by: Spak-Spang on May 20, 2005, 05:04:46 AM
Ian is right that the hardcore gamers are the real target audience. However, the hardcore gamers are players that are interested in seeing what these new games that will attract nongamers are. Hardcore gamers are gamers that will play games no matter what. They love games in all forms and just want to see the Art of gaming advance.
Nintendo has always been a company that views games from an artistic stand point. Why else do you think they made Wind Waker. Nintendo isn't stupid. They knew there could be some negative effect from the art style, but they did it anyway. Why? Because it was the best approach for the look, feel, design of the game. Basically it was the best approach for the ART of the game.
So although I agree that the hardcore gamers are important, I think targeting nongamers and hardcore gamers can be done at the same time.
Post by: Spak-Spang on May 20, 2005, 05:09:35 AM
The balance is creating a sequel that captures the essence of the original game, and changes/modifies/ and enhances the game.
Nintendo usually does a GREAT job of this. Very seldom are the games just complete rehashs of the original games. In fact the only series I can think that does that are the Mario Party games and the Pokemon Games.
Post by: jasonditz on May 20, 2005, 05:25:28 AM
They need the Seal of Approval to actually mean something. There's absolutely no good reason to give companies like Acclaim and BAM! and Kemco development kits in the first place, they obviously have no clue how to make quality titles at this point.
If I were running the company, I'd spend more on acquiring smaller players that have proven track records (I can't say this enough: Capcom). I'd require that all third party titles pass a quality assurance test before they actually get released, and I'd base the licensing fees on the average ratings the game got from reputable fan sites. The only way a company like Kemco even sees the next console is if they go to Toys R Us and buy one. I'd also keep an eye on companies like THQ, Midway, and to a lesser extent Konami, and let them know in no uncertain terms that we want them on board, but we're not going to let them release crap either.
Its not just for the sake of Nintendo's reputation (although certainly that's an issue too), but for the third parties' sake. Third party software right now is rightly met with suspicion by Nintendo console owners. This would give it some credibility, and it would save these companies a lot of trouble in the end.
Post by: Bren on May 20, 2005, 06:47:55 AM
At first I was disappointed about the Rev not being as powerful as the other machines, but then I started thinking. The Rev is going to have everything I really want from a system, or so it appears:
1) Internet gamming - this used to not be important, but my brother lives in another state and I still want to play against him
2) Good controller - Faith required, but we all know how important this is if they can come through.
3) Company dedicated to good games - Nintendo is the company most focused on the actual game, and what you think after playing it, not before.
So PS3 and XBOX will be able to do better graphics. I watched the PS3 tech demos, and there is some unbelievable stuff in there. But I realized, I could still tell the difference between computer generated and real. As long as that is true the graphics are really a small issue. Plus, Sony was talking about the immersive game world. Having everything interact correctly is as much if not more a programming problem then it is a hardware problem. If you want every blade of grass, every door, every window, everything to react. Well that is going to take A LOT of programmers, not just some fancy hardware.
Last thought, I am glad that Nintendo is opening up to more development houses. I want to see what some small game developer houses can produce. After all, these are hopefully the developers who didn't want to take place in the Sony/MS way of making blockbuster games, but actually want to create a really great game and take pride in it, not just some cool tech. My GBA might be my favorite game system I own (at least until those DS game start showing up), and I am pretty sure that isn't because of the graphics.
Post by: couchmonkey on May 20, 2005, 07:00:33 AM
Would Nintendo be getting the same support from Capcom if it had rejected P.N.07 and Megaman Battle EXE Chip Network-me-do? Would fans of Matt Groening have bought different systems besides or as well as the Cube if the Simpsons games weren't available on it? They aren't the best titles available, but people, especially casual gamers, still buy them or want the option to buy them. Speaking of the Mario Party games, although a lot of us hate them or think they're over-sequeled, they still sell very well. I think Mario Party is Nintendo's casual gamer franchise.
Of course, can this still lead to a crash? Yeah, it could, and if that situation occurs in North America, I think Nintendo may be better equipped to handle it than MS and Sony since Nintendo is trying harder to reign in development costs and bring fresh experiences to the market. I'm all for Nintendo changing it's direction, although I do hope it continues to produce some traditional games and sequels.
EDIT: On power: unless I've missed something, Nintendo has still not officially said it will be less powerful than the other consoles. Please everyone, wait until you hear actual specs or see some graphics before you assume Revolution to be less powerful.
Post by: WesDawg on May 20, 2005, 07:10:18 AM
Even if Nintendo goes down this way, I don't think I'll mind it. I like 'em in their old age. They seem... content and focused on bringing some new things to the gaming table. I have no doubt there will be a new different and great Mario game available at the Rev's launch, and that I will thoroughly enjoy playing it. The only thing that could really make me mad is if Ninty does start to go bankrupt and some idiot at Microsoft or Sony or GM manages to buy them. It would keep the company alive I know, but... well Nintendo just wouldn't be Nintendo if they weren't free to do whatever they want.
I do like the idea of just flipping off all the third parties that have ditched them in recent years though, and building their own dev studios staffed with a few great smart men as project deisgners, and armies of young programemrs hoping to learn the secrets at the feet of masters. A console with only first party games... It would never work I think.
Post by: Spak-Spang on May 20, 2005, 07:21:42 AM
Nintendo should then award developers who recieve this special quality seal with ZERO licensing fees.
Also if I was Nintendo I would award any company willing to give Nintendo a 6+ month exclusive on a game free licensing fees.
This promotes a higher standard of game quality without limiting 3rd party support. It also allows 3rd party developers something to strive for. If you make a quality game you get much more money in return.
This could also be great for smaller companies that can spend time making an A++ game and not have those licensing fees.
All Nintendo would have to do is create a special group that judges games equally on a standardized chart for quality control.
Post by: jasonditz on May 20, 2005, 07:39:51 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: couchmonkey
Would Nintendo be getting the same support from Capcom if it had rejected P.N.07 and Megaman Battle EXE Chip Network-me-do? Would fans of Matt Groening have bought different systems besides or as well as the Cube if the Simpsons games weren't available on it?
I wouldn't go quite that far with rejecting titles. Even if something like P.N.03 has its flaws, its not an absolutely dreadful game. I was more thinking stuff like MC Groovz or BMXXX or Universal Studios Theme Park.
Post by: Ian Sane on May 20, 2005, 08:00:56 AM
Fine. 40 instead of 30. Still ridiculously limited and still ridiculously small. Plus if you think about they wouldn't make it to 40 because the console would tank so fast they wouldn't last 40 months.
In theory I like the idea of ensuring third party quality but it wouldn't work. Third parties care primarly about making money and by limiting what they can release Nintendo would be limiting potential third party revenue. It would just turn third parties off. I agree with Spak-Spang in that some sort in incentive program to release quality games should be in place. But they can't offer zero licensing fees. Nintendo would then only make money off of bad third party games. Some sort of discount would be good though or maybe some sort of rebate based on sales. I think having some sort of perk for exclusives should be in place too. Again though it can't be zero licencing fees. No console maker can afford that. Though one important thing is that regular licence fees should be a comparable price to Sony and MS. They shouldn't screw over third parties that don't make good stuff.
Another idea would be a program where Nintendo will publish and distribute a game for a third party in exchange for complete exclusivity and that includes any special editions (ie: over 20% of content is reused). Nintendo obviously has to approve of the game and it has to meet their standards of quality. And if the Nintendo published exclusive is a new franchise the third party can then choose to publish their own sequel but it must be a six month Rev exclusive and they're not allowed to announce a port until a week after the game has been shipped. This way a third party can't have Nintendo publish a killer game for them only to have the sequels jump ship to the competition. The idea is an expansion of Nintendo's partnership deals with Square, Sega, Namco & Konami for the Gamecube. The difference being this is open to anyone provided Nintendo feels they can deliver the goods.
Post by: jasonditz on May 20, 2005, 08:19:00 AM
If those first party titles weren't enough to sell the console on their own, there'd be a lot fewer Cube owners than there are.
Post by: Ian Sane on May 20, 2005, 08:36:30 AM
People like options. It's only 40 games if you like all 40 games. Odds are for each individual of those 40 they would want to buy probably less than half of them. Plus there's a huge psychological part of it too. It doesn't matter how great the games are. One game of month would scare people away. People would assume that because of no third party support that the console wasn't going to last long and thus would stay away.
And it's not like you have 40 games to choose from right away. You start out with only 1 or 2. Then a month later 3, then two months later 4. People would get bored really quickly and if you didn't like game 5 then you've got to wait another for game 6. You would constantly be running out of games to play even if you bought every single title.
Post by: PaLaDiN on May 20, 2005, 09:24:17 AM
I call BS. Are you really convinced that Nintendo would have done this if Microsoft hadn't started Live? Because I'm not. They give all these excuses for not using online, then they start watering down the excuses, and then they finally stop making excuses altogether, and you expect me to believe they weren't dragged into this screaming and kicking?
"They've finally got the type of online they wanted. Quit living in your pipe dream where Nintendo still agrees with you about online."
What the hell? You don't even know what type of online they have, and you're telling me it's the type they want? Buddy, I think it's you who should quit living in your pipe dream where online is absolutely good and Nintendo has fallen captive to its enthralling appeal.
It's not like I developed this hatred of online gaming overnight. I'll be seeing you on the other side in a few years when you get sick of online games too... count on it.
And one last thing. Why do people always provoke me into yet another online argument? You all know how I feel. Get used to it, you're not going to change my opinion. Just walk away and shake your head at my delusions, if that's what you think they are.
Post by: Artimus on May 20, 2005, 09:33:11 AM
People don't provoke you, we get annoyed because you take every shot at online you can get. Maybe if YOU accept that it's a good feature for a lot of people things would be easier.
Post by: Kairon on May 20, 2005, 09:39:18 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: PaLaDiN
"This is a fun thread. I got a kick out of Paladin's remark about online. Buddy, can you not see Nintendo themselves is excited for online? No one forced them to this. They haven't given in to anything."
I call BS. Are you really convinced that Nintendo would have done this if Microsoft hadn't started Live? Because I'm not. They give all these excuses for not using online, then they start watering down the excuses, and then they finally stop making excuses altogether, and you expect me to believe they weren't dragged into this screaming and kicking?
"They've finally got the type of online they wanted. Quit living in your pipe dream where Nintendo still agrees with you about online."
What the hell? You don't even know what type of online they have, and you're telling me it's the type they want? Buddy, I think it's you who should quit living in your pipe dream where online is absolutely good and Nintendo has fallen captive to its enthralling appeal.
It's not like I developed this hatred of online gaming overnight. I'll be seeing you on the other side in a few years when you get sick of online games too... count on it.
And one last thing. Why do people always provoke me into yet another online argument? You all know how I feel. Get used to it, you're not going to change my opinion. Just walk away and shake your head at my delusions, if that's what you think they are.
Paladin, Nintendo has been experimenting with online connectivity since the NES. Their Famicom Disk Drive was tied into online, The Super Nes had the "satellite" network, and the N64 had a "Ram-net" for the ill-fated Rambus. Nintendo has CLEARLY been waiting for the right time to go online, and they've decided that the time is now.
Besides, it should be evident that Nintendo doesn't want online connecitivity purely for player-matching services, but only once they can figure out a way to use online connections to create something OTHER than PvP deathmatches or consistent worlds. Clearly, Miyamoto and Nintendo believes that they finally have some software that has a chance of not looking like a copycat of Rare's 64-multiplayer Perfect Dark 0.
Without speculating on what new software Nintendo is keeping under wraps, Animal Crossing DS is a perfect example of a game where online connectivity is used NOT to simply match players, but to create a meaningful player community that consists of more than trash talk and waiting for games. And the Revolution's online connectivity will also make buying Nintendo's retro catalogue of games painless, seamless, and appealing.
If Nintendo had the games for online connectivity, I'm sure they would've gone online ages ago. Heaven knows, they had the experimental technology to do it. But what good is an online network if it's only used to copycat Sony and MS' player-matching? In Online connectivity, Nintendo is the company with the MOST to lose if they can't do anything new with the online medium: without a compelling reason to go online, without their downloadable backlog of games and their aims at creating meaningful player relations via Animal Crossing, and whatever else they've got up their sleeve, Nintendo will only prove to the world that they are a copycata and second-hander.
Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
P.S. forgive me, I haven't argued with you yet about Nintendo and Online connectivity. &P
Post by: Savior on May 20, 2005, 09:48:28 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on May 20, 2005, 10:06:25 AM
Nintendo's excuses were never about online gaming being a bad thing. They said it wasn't profitable. Their "we must make profit all the time no matter what" complex was acting up. I still think it was a dumb move. I still think that a short term loss to establish a foothold in the online marketplace would have been a worthwhile investment. I still think they probably lost more by not going online since not having the feature hurt Cube sales. But their excuse had nothing to do with the concept itself.
And even if they were dragged into it that's not always a bad thing. The Cube used discs after years of Nintendo sh!tting on the concept in favor of cartridges. I think the Cube has benefited tremendously from that change. There are a lot of games that just plain wouldn't have been released on the Cube if they stuck with cartridges and it's not like all their games had huge load times either. You could say Nintendo was forced to change in that situation. But sometimes changing with trends is the right thing to do. Nintendo isn't always right. They don't always do what's best for gaming.
Though there was one thing that I was worried about in regards to online support that I'm not worried about now. I was worried that Nintendo wouldn't be able to attract interest in their online plan because the competition already did it first. I was worried they would be stuck playing catch up. But they shouldn't be because of that download service. Everyone seems to love that idea. That alone will ensure that Nintendo online will be accepted. Come for the download service, stay for online SSB.
Post by: jasonditz on May 20, 2005, 11:37:08 AM
Waiting for the idea to become profitable isn't that bad a thing. Sega spent big on free online for the Dreamcast, we saw how far it got them. Microsoft even offered a subscription service just to use their online service, and they still lost more than the budget of a small African nation on the deal.
Post by: PaLaDiN on May 20, 2005, 01:52:40 PM
Post by: jasonditz on May 20, 2005, 02:09:05 PM
Post by: PaLaDiN on May 20, 2005, 02:22:14 PM
Post by: Artimus on May 20, 2005, 02:44:12 PM
Post by: jasonditz on May 20, 2005, 03:17:08 PM
Post by: Savior on May 20, 2005, 03:24:27 PM
I have. I enjoy Xbox live alot, the only problem is the I LOVE HALO 2s that keep talking obcenities in the game. When you play with friends its alot of fun. I have a couple of friends in the States and its great to be able to play with them online and form things like Car Clubs in Forza Motor Sport.
Xbox 360 im not as optimist about. The inclusion of eye toy like cameras will most certainly be abused.
Post by: jasonditz on May 20, 2005, 03:33:36 PM
I did buy a cheap PS2 recently specifically to see where online console gaming had gone since the Dreamcast... it still boils down to the same thing:
Playing against somebody online is like playing against somebody in person, only worse.
I think Nintendo gets that... whenever you hear them talking about online they're talking about successfully recreating the experience of playing against someone in person.
Post by: Savior on May 20, 2005, 05:33:16 PM
Post by: Artimus on May 20, 2005, 05:47:31 PM
