Post by: MaryJane on March 06, 2006, 06:19:53 AM
Here's what I'm wondering what do you guys think (even the haters) will happen if Nintendo were to become #1 in console sales again with the revolution? Not just the effect it would have on Nintendo, but on Sony, Microsoft, and the video game community in general. What about the trickle effect? Would Nintendo being #1 with the revolution effect their handhelds at all? I'll ask one other question with the hope that it doesn't start a flame war; Is it even possible for the revolution to boost Nintendo to #1 again? The ps3 may have it's share of problem at the moment, but there are still lots of people who can't even begin to fathom buying anything except the next playstation.
I have my own answers to these questions, but first I'd like to see what others think.
Post by: animecyberrat on March 06, 2006, 06:27:15 AM
I beleive that Nintendo WILL be number one bt I think it will be more drastic than anybody can predict. I think it will put PS2 sales to shame.
I predict that ps3 will fall flat onits face and wont ever take off, price will be too high, rev will have more buzz, 360 will hvae betetr games, sony will start suffering more money troubles and eventulay have to file bancruptcy in part due to ps 3 failure but also because of the blu ray gamble whihc wont pay off.
Microsoft will now see sony out of they way and exit the console karket and join forces with Nintendo to make the best games ever, Sega wil re-enter the markiet with thier own system with TRUE backwards compatibility (it will be like Saturn have acat slot for SMS,Genesis, maybe 32X games) and it will have Virtual COnsole like emulators allowing it to read saturn, sega cd adn dream cast games. It will have a slightly improved controller but nobody will notice cuz they will be too busy saying they ripped it off Nintendo and it will have a true vr head set that makes it the first true vr system. BUt it wont comeout untill three years into the revs life cycle.
I honestly dont see Nintendo losing thier possition in game boyland ever but I do see them caving in and adding Cell phone features to a latter Gb just to compete with cell phone games cuz they will start affecting nintendos sales once cell phones get better than ds technology.
Post by: Ceric on March 06, 2006, 06:33:45 AM
Just a thought for everyone while we are on a close subject. Did anyone notice that there is a curse in the third system? I don't know about Atari and Neo Geo but... Nintendo had the N64 it was there decline despite some classics. Sega had the Sega CD or Saturn, it consider how you look at it, but both signal Sega's decline. Sega started to work back up with the Dreamcast but not enough and Nintendo started working back up with the Cube but again not enough for this gen at least. Now Sony is on there 3rd console in market leading position and are pushing a new more expensive media. Sound like anyone else we know? Though it is larger but it is still more expensive. This might be more then just wishful thinking. Though I do think that Microsoft really could step up to the plate. They have some good stuff on PC.
The Edit was to make it more readable.
Post by: ShyGuy on March 06, 2006, 06:40:26 AM
Post by: RiskyChris on March 06, 2006, 06:40:36 AM
I can realistically see them reaching the #2 position this generation though - Japanese sales alone will be huge for the revolution.
Post by: Smash_Brother on March 06, 2006, 06:41:18 AM
If the Rev does for the home console what the DS did for the handheld, then game, set, match: Nintendo.
Post by: jasonditz on March 06, 2006, 06:54:25 AM
As for Sony, seriously, what can they do? The company's financial state is ever worsening, Apple's eating into their consumer electronics sales, not to mention their CD sales. Microsoft's already eating into their console sales, and the PSP wasn't the world beater they were expecting (it's if anything, doing merely acceptable). If Nintendo starts kicking ass and makes the PS3 a distant third, they're completely screwed. They'll already be subsidizing their system to an impressive tune, so price cuts are probably out. They don't have any first party muscle to bring to bear. They don't have the cash to outbid Microsoft for third party exclusives, and with no market share, they're unlikely to get a lot of offers for really good exclusives anyhow.
I don't see bankrupcy just yet, but I do see corporate pulling the plug on the video games division if things turn sour. Remember, there was talk of them pulling the plug early in the PS2's life cycle, when it's early post-launch went less than well. Then GTA3 showed up and saved it.
Post by: RiskyChris on March 06, 2006, 07:00:50 AM
Just speculation!
Post by: Smash_Brother on March 06, 2006, 07:08:35 AM
Basically everything which made them great last gen is gone. The head start, exclusive titles, Square...all of it isn't nailed down like it was before.
I hate to think of MS being the leader in the console market, but I'm no Sony fan either.
Post by: Ceric on March 06, 2006, 07:12:07 AM
Post by: BigJim on March 06, 2006, 07:25:53 AM
Enough people would buy the console that 3rd party support would be larger. Genres are covered considerably better as a result. We wouldn't tire and lack games to try out. I don't think that Sony or MS would necessarily react in any dramatic ways, other than to possibly immitate the controller through an accessory or something. And compete through price cuts/bundles/packages. And MS will secretly try to buy Nintendo.
"Would Nintendo being #1 with the revolution effect their handhelds at all?"
Their portable success doesn't really help their consoles, so I don't think the reverse would be true. It wouldn't hurt them, though. It helps with their brand identity and awareness. So it'd be a good thing in general. How much it affects the portables couldn't be quantified, though.
"Is it even possible for the revolution to boost Nintendo to #1 again?"
Nintendo has the resources to do just about anything they wanted to. Sony came out of nowhere and took #1 (and they were profitable to boot). Anything is possible. But I don't think it's probable. This is Nintendo's stand to become relevant again to consumers (new and old). They're brushing off the dust and making themselves noticed. I think they'll do better than GameCube, but Revolution won't take them to the top. They need to rebuild themselves. This would be a first step. I DO believe this generation will be more competitive on the whole. Not another 70/15/15 worldwide marketshare split. Sony's share will come back down to earth, but I think they'll probably still be the leader.
"I'm wondering what do you guys think (even the haters)"
There are no haters here. We love Nintendo, but we just have different opinions about strategy.
Post by: MaryJane on March 06, 2006, 08:13:08 AM
"What would happen if they became #1?"
To put it simply Nintendo would take Sony's place. No duh right? But what I mean by that is the number of third-party exclusives Sony gets would shift nicely under Nintendo's umbrella. But there's a little more to it than that. Judging by the quality (or lack thereof) of ps games, I think it would be safe to presume that Sony gives third-party developers pretty much free reign. This is not the case with Nintendo, at least not too often. With Nintendo in the number 1 position they would have the ability to dictate some guidelines for their games. Now obviously they don't want to bully developers and scare them away, but i think they'd expect more of them, and we'd all benefit. Also I would have to say that Sony would move into the number 2 position. Xbox's only sell in the U.S. and initially sony will be strong no matter what happens later. people are generally loyal when it comes to any kind of major electronics. Also I think it'd be rather difficult for sony or ms to copy the controller. Not that the controller itself would be hard to duplicate, but rather the receiver that Nintendo is using to make sure it works with all t.v's. That technology has to be pretty proprietary, as in right now it's the only way to do it. so Ninty's competitors would have a good deal of trouble going around the patent.
"Would Nintendo being #1 with the revolution effect their handhelds at all?"
I think it would. There was another thread, the revolutions last big secret. Here's what came to me while reading big jim's post. What if the one of the last secrets (hopefully not the BIG one) is that the rev will play games from every system right out of the box. this is actually just an expansion of the thought that the ds will have connectivity to the revolution. the revolution is sort of a ds for the t.v so i don't think it would be difficult. Being able to play gba and ds games on the rev will boost sales of those games as well. If someone doesn't have a need for portable gaming, then it's like hey, I can still play these awesome games and not need to buy another system. While that technically hurts the sale of the portables, the games are what counts, that's where all the money comes from, and it's also one of the ways developers decide whether or not its worth making a game. Even if it can't play every game from every system right out of the box, don't be surprised to see DS connectivity, especially since it could easily be done with wires, and sony and ms are doing it.
"Is it even possible for the revolution to boost Nintendo to #1 again?"
Anything is possible in this world. If back in the SNES days you told me that in a couple years Nintendo was going to 3rd overall in sales in the U.S, 2nd in the world, and Sega was no longer going to make consoles. I would have laughed you to scorn. But look at us now. As i mentioned before I believe Sony will be initially strong even if they later flounder. However, also as I mentioned before the Rev is sort of a DS for the t.v, and if the DS is anything to gauge by, the Rev has a good chance of becoming #1.
"I'm wondering what do you guys think (even the haters)"
I think I'm going to start making it clear when I make a tongue in cheek comment. lol. While I know there are no real haters, there are people who love to disagree. I read a lot of books, and every book is worthless without an antagonist, if a "hater" posts, thought is stimulated, and we may surprise ourselves with the respones we come up with defending our thoughts. That's what I think anyway.
Post by: Fro on March 06, 2006, 01:31:37 PM
I really do think PS3 and 360 are going to be too high-priced for the mass-market. I see the same old FPS CG cutscenes as "game trailers" for Sony and Microsoft's big games. I don't see HD support being a big factor until 2009, and it's a non-issue in Europe and Japan.
I don't think Microsoft or Sony can easily copy Nintendo's controller. Even if they release a ripoff peripheral , support will be very medicore compared to Revolution. There's never been a console peripheral supported by dozens of games in the history of gaming. Heck, the NES zapper was really popular and there were only about 15-20 games for it. Even if Sony/Microsoft start bundling the revmote ripoff with their consoles, most games for their consoles won't be built around the new control scheme.
Revolution definitely seems to be picking up some steam with PS3 definitely not coming out until the fall (and maybe 2007) and Microsoft blowing the 360 launch by not having enough consoles ready. They should "win" E3 since they've been ridiclously tight-lipped about Rev whereas Sony and Microsoft have blown their big guns last year.
Post by: Ian Sane on March 06, 2006, 02:07:51 PM
But there are a lot of "ifs". I would love Nintendo to be on top by being Nintendo in that their games were still amazing and groundbreaking. And I would want them to earn it by providing options and being a better console marker for developers and gamers. Nintendo as is probably can't become number one and I don't really want them to as is. They're too sequel-happy these days. Nintendo in their peak didn't release annual rehashs. They won't help the industry anymore than EA does now if they still slap Mario into any quick-buch game they can think of. I don't think that attitude would help the industry. And Nintendo is very restrictive. If something (like HD or online gaming last gen) didn't interest them we wouldn't get it and that would kind of suck. Or they be restrictive to the point of losing their spot which isn't good either.
It also would depend on why the Rev became number one. In other words I only care if it became successful on the strength of games I like. What if the blue ocean strategy works so well that non-gamers skewer the results. Like the Rev "wins" because it has the highest userbase but it's userbase is 90% non-gamers and hardcore gamers have no interest in it. In that case what difference would it make because for the hardcores Nintendo still wouldn't be their first choice? I also wouldn't be happy if Nintendo made gaming even more mainstream than it is now to the point where games become so dumbed-down for the mainstream I'm not interested anymore. You don't want a market leader where the main audience is a bunch of philistines. That's enough of a problem with the PS2 and Fifty-Cent's game selling well.
It's sometimes scary to think of your favourite company becoming number one in a highly competitive market. During the Monday night wars in wrestling I prefered the WWF and wanted them to "win". They did and now I hate them because once they beat WCW and ECW they lost all the qualities I liked about them that made me a fan in the first place. That relates more to no competition I suppose but it's scary. I definately don't want to see Nintendo have too much a lead.
Post by: ShyGuy on March 06, 2006, 02:14:07 PM
Post by: jasonditz on March 06, 2006, 03:54:03 PM
Nongamers aren't going to go to Best Buy, see Zelda Revolution, and say "oh... can't buy that, that's for real gamers, I better get Virtua Sudoku". They're going to buy what interests them, just like the rest of us, and over time, they're going to become "real gamers" too.
Post by: slacker on March 06, 2006, 06:09:41 PM
The rev controller must work great, even with interference. It must be easy to set up, easy to calibrate, must be responsive, and accurate. this is a great unknown from a consumer's point of view. I'm sure Nintendo worked out the issues already, so I would think this would be the last of my concern. However, we don't know how robust the controller is yet.
Nintendo's Wi-Fi strategy will play a huge part of the Revolution's success. Unlike Microsoft's implementation, the Rev can use our existing internet connection to go online and depending on the game, play online free of charge. the question becomes will 90% of games support the feature. Will Nintendo allow consumers to run game servers and invite their friends to log on to do some community gaming? Will Nintendo have a free service that gamers can go on to to play with others. If Nintendo want this thing to work extremely well, they should allow individuals to set up their own gaming server. This will get the hardcore gamers onboard immediately.
The games must capture the gaming public's attention immediately and hold on to it. I'm sure Rev games will capture the gaming public's attention immediately, but the question remains, can it hold on to it? So far, we see no concrete gameplay mechanics. I am curious as to what's available and how deep the gameplay will go. Nintendo must resist the temptation to throw out sparkling innovation games that would be more appropriate in a Mario Party title. Also, unless there are a few new genres that will appear on the Rev at launch or shortly after, the Rev might not make it that far past the gate.
We all know how much Microsoft screwed up on the XBox360 launch. If they can't get enough consoles into the hands of retailers, let alone consumers, by the time E3 comes around, they pretty much killed the XBox360 in Japan. Sony, if they don't launch in 2006 and if they don't launch the PS3 under $350, they are screwed. They will be screwed in Japan and the US. Also, the price of their games must stay competitive with the others ($45 - $55). I do not want to pay $60-$70 games.
I think that Nintendo has a very good shot at reclaiming the title. They have a higher chance in their homeland. However, it boils down to execution and pushing the people toward their console. I don't think the Rev will have enough to be number 1 in the U.S. because U.S. gamers prefer games that are more free-roaming and deep (aka complicated games or what is on the PC). They have always prefer these types of games.
Post by: wandering on March 06, 2006, 08:26:50 PM
Quote
Just a thought for everyone while we are on a close subject. Did anyone notice that there is a curse in the third system?
After 2 generations of success, a company will assume success is a given and do stupid things.
Nintendo thought they could push no-load-times cartridges on the marketplace. Sony is thinking they can push blue-ray on the marketplace.
Post by: Requiem on March 07, 2006, 02:40:45 AM
You know how many games I bought based on that 1 picture alone? To make it even more of a point, I ended up loving every single game. Even that 1001 games compilation.
P.S. Has anyone played that? It's f**king insanity. It had everything; from tennis to a circus game.
P.S.S That circus game was bad ass. You were a clown and had to time your movement to jump from one trampoline to a swinging rope, then land on another trampoline. Then to top it off, you had to land on a pony and dodge/jump haystacks BattleToad style.
I don't remember how long I played that compilation for. It was one of my favorite games.
Post by: jasonditz on March 07, 2006, 08:31:01 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: wandering
Nintendo becoming number 1, if the ds is any indication, would be fantastic. We'd wind up with more innovative, fun titles than we could buy.Quote
Just a thought for everyone while we are on a close subject. Did anyone notice that there is a curse in the third system?
After 2 generations of success, a company will assume success is a given and do stupid things.
Nintendo thought they could push no-load-times cartridges on the marketplace. Sony is thinking they can push blue-ray on the marketplace.
Nintendo is also the first company to make it to a fifth stand-alone console system so when the revolution hits the market we're officially in uncharted territory.
Post by: Smash_Brother on March 07, 2006, 08:46:52 AM
Quote
Like the Rev "wins" because it has the highest userbase but it's userbase is 90% non-gamers and hardcore gamers have no interest in it.
Doesn't work that way.
If the Rev becomes the highest-selling console on the market, developers will gravitate toward it, drawing the hardcore gamers to it as well.
If Nintendo sells a billion Revs to non-gamers, it's meaningless: all that matters is they sold a billion Revs.
Post by: MaryJane on March 07, 2006, 09:18:54 AM
Also i don't think nintendo would turn it's back on hardcore gamers. Look at the ds. The best selling games for it so far are these so called non-games. Yet we still have mp:h coming out, plus some good looking rpg's. I do believe that we will see a boatload of non-games on the revolution, no matter how succesful, or unsuccesful it is.
Post by: Ian Sane on March 07, 2006, 09:28:30 AM
You're assuming those devs will make games hardcores like. What if things change so much that most existing devs switch to making "non-games" because that's where the money is? It would probably be like you suggest but if Nintendo really changes the industry like they want to gaming period might change into something hardcore gamers don't like and one of both of the competitors are the only options.
Post by: RiskyChris on March 07, 2006, 10:27:59 AM
Post by: Zach on March 07, 2006, 10:39:03 AM
Post by: Smash_Brother on March 07, 2006, 11:30:41 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
You're assuming those devs will make games hardcores like. What if things change so much that most existing devs switch to making "non-games" because that's where the money is? It would probably be like you suggest but if Nintendo really changes the industry like they want to gaming period might change into something hardcore gamers don't like and one of both of the competitors are the only options.
We still get 2D games on 3D platforms. Why would "hardcore" games evaporate when 2D is generations old and still explored regularly?
Even then, "hardcore" isn't a genre so much as a mindset. The PS2 has games which were "non-games" like Katamari or whatever it's called but it also had the mainstay of RPGs, FPSs, sports games, etc.
If the Rev was in 1st place, gamers who wouldn't buy most of todays games would buy it to play the "non-games", then take a look at other titles as they come out, effectively acting as the gateway drug of gaming. If not for the cube, I never would have found my love of Animal Crossing, Resident Evil, MGS and a number of other games which I wouldn't have touched if not for games like SSBM luring me in at first.
The DS continues to do this. I'm now a fan of Castlevania, Phoenix Wright, Puyo Pop and a number of other franchises I never would have touched without it being my gateway.
If the Rev was in the lead, genres old and new alike would congregate on it because they want the sales numbers that come with the highest-selling console.
Post by: MaryJane on March 07, 2006, 12:32:04 PM
There are a countless number of posts suggesting that if the rev is succesful sony and ms will probably release copies. (I myself have written a few of those). So why wouldn't that translate to games also? If mp3 sells 2million copies, and the cooking game sells 6million i think its safe to say that big developers and producers are going to want to make more games along the lines of the cooking game than mp3. sales talk. however while there would be a flood of these types of games because of higher sales, we'll still more traditional games with their sales being still good. there are non-gamers who will never pick up anything that is for "hard-core" gamers, or even mario games. that's just they way it is. however there are many people like the ones on this forum who will be strongly supporting the traditional games. whether nintendo is in first or second place, this is going to be the case. i'm hoping they reach first place as i do believe it will affect the entire video game community. and we'd have less rehashes and other such crap.
Post by: Ian Sane on March 07, 2006, 12:54:13 PM
Prior to the release of Super Mario Bros and the NES gaming was about high scores. Most games played in a loop that continued until you died. The goal was to get a high score. These are games like Pac-Man, Defender, Bezerk, Space Invaders, Donkey Kong, etc. When Super Mario Bros came out things changed. SMB had a finite end to it and multiple stages. The goal of the game was to get from the beginning to the end. Gaming changed to reflect this new idea and point-based games pretty much disappeared. The goal wasn't to see how long you survived or how high of a score you could get anymore. The goal was to beat the game. If you liked the old method of gaming you were sh!t out of luck. Games like that became obscure.
In the mid-90s the Playstation and N64 were released and gaming went 3D. 2D gaming is now more or less dead. Yes 2D games are still made but they're niche title or relegated to portables or they have their sprites replaced with 3D models to attract higher sales. If you're a fan of 2D gaming you're an outsider now. Devs just don't give you much attention anymore. Even Nintendo with the Gameboy has neglected 2D gamers. The GBA didn't get a 2D Mario platformer. Finally we're getting one and it's being presented in polygons. When was the last time Miyamoto made a 2D game? They still make games the "old way" but they're not as common and they're not given the same amount of attention they used to get. Did Nintendo even make any 2D N64 games? Yoshi's Story, maybe?
So if Nintendo succeeds and creates a gaming revolution the same thing could happen. Gaming as we know it now could become niche just like high-score point games and 2D games did.
Post by: RiskyChris on March 07, 2006, 01:38:28 PM
The difference between 2D and 3D gaming is much much more significant and realistic than going from "normal" games to a baker's dozen of cooking games.
Let's say there are X units of demand for "normal" games (appealing to the hardcore). These people will not switch parties to play non-games.
Now let's imagine 10X units of demand for non-games (cooking, pets, brain training, etc...). Your inclination is all developers will start to produce those games.
This is *not* true. Some companies will not want to compete in the growing market for cooking games, and will find themselves in a good position to develop for the X demand for hardcore games (after all, a lot of competition left, resulting in more profit).
Post by: jasonditz on March 07, 2006, 02:12:33 PM
Would it be better if all the games were still 2D looping shooters where high score is the only goal? Would it be better if Mario 64 had never existed? Even "hardcore" gamers are going to get bored if they're being presented with incremental improvements on the same old formula for three solid decades. Change is necessary, and it's probably going to be for the better.
Things will change, and we're going to change with them. I'm a fan of 2D games too... but not to the exclusion of 3D games. The legions of gamers who bought Street Fighter 2 when it first came out aren't just SOL here, the vast majority of them moved on to Virtua Fighter, or Soul Calibur, or SSBM. He might get all excited when a new Capcom vs SNK game comes out and makes him feel all nostalgic, but he's not sitting there weeping and gnashing his teeth because DOA4 isn't a 2D sprite-based fighter.
I think there's a difference between approachability and lack of complexity. Nintendo's trying to make games more approachable to the uninitiated, that doesn't necessarily mean they're going to lack complexity.
Post by: MaryJane on March 07, 2006, 03:31:51 PM
both stem from advancement in video games.
the games that never ended and were based on high scores had a lot of limitations graphically they couldn't create worlds to explore, how do u hav a never ending platformer, or rpg?
3d games also come from graphical advancements. the point of video games has for long time now, been to imitate life, even if within a fantasy setting. having them in 3d allows this more than 2d does.
if the revolution were to change gaming in anyway it wouldn't be that non-games would be the only thing available. the advancements in technology have opened up new genres of gaming not closed off any. 2d and never ending games aren't a genre. they are a way to play. maybe after this generation non-motion sensing gaming will disappear and you'll be forced to play every game using motion. oh no, not exercise, our fat butts don't need more excercise do they? Non-games may become common place, but they aren't going to erase our favorite genres.
Post by: slacker on March 07, 2006, 04:35:54 PM
Non-games are games that get people who don't play games to play games. If they play a game long enough and often enough, don't that make them a hardcore gamer? Its a natural progression. A regular person tries out a non-game and thinks its fun. This person continues to play it for long hours and at every spare moment. As days progressed, the person is obsessed. Finally, the game doesn't offer enough stimulation for the person anymore and the individual becomes bored and restless. This prompts the person to seek out something to fill the void. In the course of the search, this person finds a new game that came highly recommended and plays. The cycle repeats multiple times and then...the regular person has now went from ordinary, to casual gamer, to obsessed gamer, to hardcore gamer. By this time, the person has an acquired taste for a specific type of game and will almost always play those types and reject all others. Gaming is like a drug addiction. The road to becoming hardcore isn't obvious until its too late.
What's my point? We all were once non-gamers, who played some games, got addicted, and eventually developed a taste for a specific type of game. I don't think hardcore gamers won't gravitate towards the Rev. They will. Its just that the Rev will create new hardcore gamers. In the end, is not having a lot of hardcore gamers for the rev all that bad? I don't like games that are too free roaming and overly complicated in the control mechanism. These are games that hardcore gamers will appreciate, but a casual gamer or new comer might now appreciate it. I refuse to play a game that requires you to memorize a whole lot of button combinations to enjoy it no matter how good it is. I remember a time when I thought the original metroid suck because I didn't know what the heck I was doing...but I was young and stupid then.
Post by: Kairon on March 07, 2006, 05:06:08 PM
~Carmine M. Red
Post by: jasonditz on March 07, 2006, 05:17:20 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Is DDR a non-game? Is Sims? Heck...wasn't Tetris a "non"game when it came out?
~Carmine M. Red
Lets not forget Sim City... the manual for it specifically says its not a game, its a toy.
Post by: Mario on March 07, 2006, 05:19:32 PM
Quote
So if Nintendo succeeds and creates a gaming revolution the same thing could happen. Gaming as we know it now could become niche just like high-score point games and 2D games did.
So basically if Revolution succeeds gaming is doomed, and if it doesn't Nintendo is doomed. What a wonderful world you live in!
Post by: BigJim on March 07, 2006, 11:47:19 PM
I can see Ian's concern, only my reasons are more recent. When Zelda/Rev comes out, it'll be almost 2 years since the last GameCube game came out that I wanted (Star Fox Assault.) In all that time, Mario Parties, infinite Mario sports games, Nintendogs, etc. get top billing while I sat back and watched. I guess you could call me one of those "dormant" players they're trying to attract with the Rev, but I was never dormant by choice. I always had cash in hand to buy the next Zelda, real Mario, Mario Kart, Star Fox, F-Zero, Wave Race, or a new deep IP they could come up with. Instead their goals for the second half of the system’s life were mostly cheap development/quick buck/Mario infinity titles that I can't get into. If Nintendo's strategy is remotely similar to their Cube strategy of the last 2 years, it's fair to me to say that there is room for some concerns as far as core gaming/hardcore/whatever goes. I'll simply end up becoming another one of the majority that "graduated" to another system for more stimuli. Heck, Nintendo's already given us license to do it.
Secondly, they've already discussed that the "hardcore" audience is only about 20%. Targeting the outside audience statistically shrinks that percentage. Those new players might become hardcores, but it's a process that doesn't happen quickly and there's no telling exactly what TYPE of hardcore they'll be... My Mom's a hardcore Pogo.com player, on there every night for hours (playing until the fully charged laptop battery dies) before going to bed. But I sure wouldn't want a console stuffed with Poppit, Fortune Bingo and Phlinx games any more than fishing or cooking games. If my types of games aren't there, then I won't play. "Don't worry they'll still make those games" doesn't squelch the concern because half of GameCube's life shows something different.
Post by: Ian Sane on March 08, 2006, 06:54:48 AM
I drive my car every day but no one would consider me a hardcore car enthusiast. I consider a hardcore gamer based on their tastes in gaming, not how much they play. My definition of a hardcore gamer is someone who recognizes what's crap and what's gold. When they discovered gaming a hardcore gamer seeks out games from the past that they missed and tries to expand his interest beyond the few titles he was introduced to. Most people don't do that. They just play a few games they like and they don't care about older games or try out other genres or make any effort to go beyond the initial games they started with. They're not hardcore even if they spend lots of money and play lots of games.
My gateway was Super Mario World. That's a hardcore game. It's a game that hardcore gamers love and still love today. If you ask someone who knows a lot about gaming to name the best games of all time that title would be mentioned. It's a fantastic first game for someone because it starts them off with a classic. Often when someone gets into gaming the thrill of just playing a game is what draws them in and they don't realize that in fact the game they're playing sucks and anyone who knows better would hate it. They're wowed because the guy on the screen moves when they push a button.
Non-gamers only become hardcore gamers if they're initially brought in with a game hardcore gamers like. A lot of people today were first introduced to gaming by substandard Playstation games and they don't have good taste in games so they don't play good games. So if the Rev brings people in with games hardcore gamers aren't interested in most of those people won't become hardcore gamers. They'll stick with titles like the ones that brought them in and not look beyond that.
Post by: jasonditz on March 08, 2006, 06:58:59 AM
Post by: jasonditz on March 08, 2006, 07:11:49 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
Non-gamers only become hardcore gamers if they're initially brought in with a game hardcore gamers like.
Bull... I got brought in with Combat on the Atari 2600... not exactly an artistic masterpiece (admittedly I was 3 years old at the time). Tastes develop over time... what you're saying is like saying if your first drink was a bottle of Wild Turkey you can never be a wine conniseur.
I've been in it a quarter of a century now: I even learned Japanese so I could import games that don't make it over here... I own somewhere in the vacinity of 1,000 games right now... but it all started with Combat. And Combat sucks... it had zero AI... you had to play it two player... if they came out with a GBA port today and said it was only $0.50... I'd probably walk right past it.
Post by: BigJim on March 08, 2006, 09:36:53 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: jasonditz
If all you want is Star Fox, Zelda, and Mario platformers, I don't think you should be too surprised that you're only getting a handful of games per generation. In the time since Star Fox got released, we've gotten Fire Emblem, Batalion Wars, Pokemon XD, Geist, Jungle Beat, and Chibi Robo... maybe those aren't your type of games but they're not exactly cashin titles or non-games either.
2 or 3 of those games are interesting, but 3 games in 2 years wouldn't blow my skirt up either. I think I've owned probably a little over 2 dozen Cube games. It's the smallest library I've had for any console. I have easily twice as many N64 games, and I couldn't count the SNES and NES games.
The Cube was just a miss. There's some reason why they weren't able to hold my attention (or the millions of others) this gen. Whatever it is, it is. And if that strategy resembles the last few years of Cube's strategy, then it'd just be another lame duck. We'll see. But the concerns aren't going away until they prove otherwise.
Post by: MaryJane on March 08, 2006, 10:02:25 AM
I think we'll actually see a strong return to old school gaming. after all the next best thing to bring in non-gamers is old school, simpler gaming. the old kiss strategy. (keep it simple stupid, for those who don't know).
I'm hoping that if nintendo were to return to the number one position, the split between traditional and non-games would be fairly equal, forcing game development to be the same. I'm always up for new things, I'd play a tennis table game, or a bug killing game, as long as the price was right and i was in the "right mood" (like i am now) to play these games i would. I wouldn't play them as often as my favs but hey just cuz i'm "older" now doesn't mean the child inside me has died. He just hides when guest come over cuz he's shy.
Post by: jasonditz on March 08, 2006, 10:37:16 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: BigJimQuote
Originally posted by: jasonditz
If all you want is Star Fox, Zelda, and Mario platformers, I don't think you should be too surprised that you're only getting a handful of games per generation. In the time since Star Fox got released, we've gotten Fire Emblem, Batalion Wars, Pokemon XD, Geist, Jungle Beat, and Chibi Robo... maybe those aren't your type of games but they're not exactly cashin titles or non-games either.
2 or 3 of those games are interesting, but 3 games in 2 years wouldn't blow my skirt up either. I think I've owned probably a little over 2 dozen Cube games. It's the smallest library I've had for any console. I have easily twice as many N64 games, and I couldn't count the SNES and NES games.
Near as I can tell we got exactly as many of the games you mentioned for the Cube as we did for the N64 (with the exception of the second Zelda title, which launched at the very end of the N64 and will launch at the very end of the Cube)... what were you buying then that you're not buying now?
Post by: norebonomis on March 08, 2006, 04:10:13 PM
