This sounds pretty exciting, and wow, I do believe we'll see just what Reggie was talking about. But in the end does this mean GameCube will or has outsold Xbox in all territories?
I think so

How much did the Cube cost at launch again? Here in Canada it was $300 but that's obviously in Canadian funds and the exchange between the two currencies back then was way different.

Anyway I figured there's no way the Rev would cost more than the Cube. Still $300 isn't really cheap. It is in comparison to the other consoles but it's not in an impulse buy range. I guess it depends on what Nintendo is going for. $300 would be good in that no one would probably think it was a cheapo inferior console at that price.

Quote

---

We'll be showing a lot of titles at this year's E3, and we think that's where consumers will get a flavor for the full range of titles and the full range of activity that we will have for our launch window.

---

$279.99usd? Hopfully it includes:
• 3-months of download service
• Freehand plus 2 attachments
• Gamers Demo Disc
• Non-gamers Demo Disc

"• Gamers Demo Disc
• Non-gamers Demo Disc"

Any particular reason for two seperate discs? Why not just have everything on one?

Hrm...this kind of throws the $200 price out the window...as in market speak, under $300 means $299.

Still...not too bad. I still plan on getting one at launch.

WOOT! The revolution is close.

Quote

---

How much did the Cube cost at launch again?

---

Quote

---

199.99. The N64 also launched that that price. (Both according to Rick.)

---

I hope for a 249.00 USD price point. 300/299 starts to get pricey for most and 200/199 looks cheap for a next generation console at launch.

"Are we sure about this? I seem to remember paying $249 with SM 64."

SM 64 wasn't a pack-in so you probably got a bundle of some sort.

I can confirm both N64 and GC were 199.99, mainly because I remember them at that price . I personally hope the system is around 300$ because that could indicate that the technology is not as underpowered as many seem to think.

I think Nintendo will keep with tradition and keep under $200.00 for the US. It may seem cheep but it is in line with their vision of console game that it should be easily accessible to non-gamers who may not want to spen a lot of money for entertainment.

I can still see it being from 200-250 dollars, though it could conceivably be a little higher than that.

Every single Nintendo system ever released was 199.99 at launch, included the NES. Anything more and I'll be very disappointed.

It's possible that they may go for the higher price point for two reasons:

1) They like selling their machines for a lower price than the competition while also making a profit per console sold.

2) The higher price point could help change the perception of their console simply being a "toy."



Either one is BS to me. Assuming that the stats leaked by the developers are correct, then $199 would be the perfect price to pitch the new-fangled controller and the virtual console and still make a profit.

Also, I'd like to know whether or not they're actually going to use displacement mapping.

Nothing against Reggie, but really, is it any suprise that more Gamecubes were sold last Christmas than Xbox360's? I mean, with the shortage and ludicrous ebay scalping going on, little Jimmy still had to get SOMETHING from Santa, right?

I've now read through the whole interview (well I read it on Gamespot but it seems to be the same one) and there's one point that Reggie brings up that I strongly disagree with and it's important because this point is largely the justification for Nintendo's whole strategy with the Rev.

"This industry has become more and more focused on the niche, and at Nintendo, we've opened our systems to a wide range of consumers."

I think it's quite the opposite. I think the industry has become more mass market. When I was a kid only kids played games. Now people of all ages do. I find that games are becoming more homogenous and more cliche. Game difficulty has dropped like a rock. Everything is a sequel. There was a time where Nintendo and Sega were THE game companies. Now it's companies like EA that just release the same mass market dumbed down disposable product over and over. Madden is the number one game and it's so unessential that people replace the previous version every year. Graphic design has become bland with few games offering unique looks. Gaming is mainstream and it's become a whole lot less interesting because of it.

Now I guess then you can argue that Nintendo is addressing the problem with the innovative Rev controller. That COULD address the staleness of the industry if implemented well. But Nintendo's plan seems to be to be even MORE mass market. If Nintendo thinks that THIS is what niche is what the hell do they consider mass market?

In context, I think by niche he means stagnant and repetitive. Like you said, the games industry has become extremely generic, and because developers want to make a profit, they keep making the sure bet games. That's what I think he means by it; that the industry is not expanding its boundaries. You won't see GTA or Madden sell any more consoles than it did this generation. And the industry may keep going strong for a while, but eventually, because of the saturation, it's bound to deteriorate.

EDIT: And regarding Reggie saying that more GameCubes were sold than 360s, well, it's his job to promote the product, even though there's obviously reasons for it.

Am I the only one who thinks "less than 300" is too nebulous and maybe even alarming? 299.99 is "less than 300." I hope that doesn't preclude a sub 250, or even sub 200 price, but I think 300 is a little too high.

Here's hoping we get a better idea soon. I am frothing for Rev info right now.

Like someone else (sorry) said, he probably gave a vague number because Nintendo wants to know what Sony's price will be before they commit. The general idea is that it will be less than the 360 and, barring a miracle, the PS3 as well.

Quote

---

I've now read through the whole interview (well I read it on Gamespot but it seems to be the same one) and there's one point that Reggie brings up that I strongly disagree with and it's important because this point is largely the justification for Nintendo's whole strategy with the Rev.

"This industry has become more and more focused on the niche, and at Nintendo, we've opened our systems to a wide range of consumers."

I think it's quite the opposite. I think the industry has become more mass market. When I was a kid only kids played games. Now people of all ages do. I find that games are becoming more homogenous and more cliche.

---

Quote

---

This industry has become more and more focused on the niche, and at Nintendo, we've opened our systems to a wide range of consumers. Whether it's consumers older than 35 or female gamers

---

I don't think "less than $300" is a $299 price announcement. I mean, the question was "less than $700?" This is just a way of safely narrowing it down without talking about what Nintendo doesn't want to talk about yet.

BTW, as for the N64 price, the PlayStation launched in Japan at 40,000 yen ($400). When it launched in America (Sept 95), it dropped to $300 (30,000 yen). Two months later, Nintendo unveiled the N64 at Shoshinkai and said it would be 25,000 yen/$250. Six months later at E3, Sony undercut everybody by dropping a full $100 down to $200, sending Sega panicking into a similar pricecut, and making Nintendo laugh arrogantly, saying everyone else needed to be $50 cheaper in order to compete with the N64.

The N64 launched in Japan one month later (June) at 25,000 yen, but it fizzled after it's weak two-game launch (despite one of those games being Mario64), prompting NOA to push for a price drop down to $200, which was approved mere days before the American N64 launch.

I don't know I think Nintendo is already thinking of doing bundles. Bundles always helped Nintendo in the past so its logical they start one now.

I mean Revolution plus Super Smash Brothers 3: $259.99.

i am guessing Nintendo will pak in the remote/core controller not the nunchuk thing.
I honestly think the nuchuck controller stick thing will never be released, and the attachmee used for a microphone.

I am also guessing a demo disk will be included that has tons of games that are playable
and a seperate DVD that will show only videos and explain some stuff about revolution and stuff.


oh yeah i am thinking DVD movie playback will be built in from the start no attachments or anty89ng. I don't know

Not including the nunchuck attachment? That would be suicide for Nintendo, since there will be some games that require an analog stick to further immerse the player. I still believe not only will the nunchuck be included but also the shell. Unlike others I would be happy if the 300$ price point was legit, in that it indicates the Revolution isn't as skimpy hardware wise as the rumours have stated.

Quote

---

SM 64 wasn't a pack-in so you probably got a bundle of some sort.

---

I read that as "No way it's over $300".

GAmes aren't harder nowadays, but they are harder to get into. BAck in the day it was one button and one joystick. Today it's 2 joysticks, a dpad and 13 buttons.

Also I don't think it was just kids playing games 25 years ago. I remember my Dad playing Atari 2600 games like football and combat with us kids. btw, I can't picture him being able to do the same thing if the football game was today's Madden.

A game like Super Mario Bros might have been hard for some to complete, but it was easy to get into.

So that's why NIntendo is releasing the new controller. They are hoping it's a more intuitive and natural way to operate a today's more complex games. A more inviting way. They want to eliminate this learning curve that has crept up in the last 20 years. And they want to provide a new experience.

I wouldnt mind playing a extra 50-100 for better tech, dont know why ppl are so obsessed with 200bucks

because is affordable? if the Rev launches at $300 theres no way I could get one at launch, I couldnt care less about the "perception" of the console as a toy. Besides, the Rev looks like anything except a toy.

"Under $300 (USD)" can't be taken literally. It's just vague talk for "undercut the competition" because they never discuss specific future product pricing before they report relevant company financials. i.e. They won't talk in-depth about next fiscal year before they report this fiscal year's end results.

Nintendo said under $250 USD for the N64, and it came out at $200 USD. For GameCube, Nintendo would only say that it'd be "competitive" until they reported their financials, which took place a few weeks after E3. At which point they announced $200 USD... again undercutting the competition considerably.

We again probably won't hear anything solid until they report their financials, but I'm still betting on $200 USD.

They could release it for $100 US, but bump game prices up to $80 US like what the rest of the world has to pay for games. Would that make America happy?

Quote

---

Originally posted by: Infernal Monkey
They could release it for $100 US, but bump game prices up to $80 US like what the rest of the world has to pay for games. Would that make America happy?

---

Okay, for pricing, $300 is too much, but as others have said, Nintendo is just keeping it's price from the competition - under $300 is pretty much a given since that's what the base 360 costs. If you want to go crazy conspiracy about it, there are still elements of the system to be revealed, perhaps they add $100 or so to the cost. I doubt it, though.

On the topic of "niche" markets: people love to point out that adults are now playing games, but how many of those adults were already videogame players as children? I'm guessing at least 80%. The market is basically only expanding because new gamers are being born - and it has lost some older gamers (my dad). I think the Revolution has a good chance of selling to people like my sister, or maybe my dad: former gamers or ultra-casual gamers who would never spend $400 to own a complicated "mainstream" system like Xbox 360 or PS3.

That's also why I think Nintendo will ultimately launch around $200 US: it knows that the system has to be cheap to sell to the non-gamers it wants to capture.

I think the marketing should be like Dove's and have pictures of "real" (i.e. largish) women in lingerie playing the Revolution. That should spread out the demographic quite a bit.

I'm wondering if when Nintendo says the industry is niche what they subconsciously really mean is that Nintendo is niche. Nintendo has always greatly overestimated their position in the industry. With the Cube they seemed completely oblivious to the fact that the N64 was a flop and that "well we're Nintendo" wasn't going to be enough by itself to sell consoles. Many times they have made decisions where it seems like they thought they were still the market leader and could get away with things that no one in their current position could get away with.

So it's not unbelievable that they would view their own situation as something that applies to the entire industry. Nintendo is niche. They've fallen into a rut of making games staring Nintendo franchise characters for Nintendo fans. There's a core group of people that eat up everything they release and few outside that group care about them at all. That is the very definition of niche. Nintendo also talks about how people are bored with today's gaming or aren't buying as many games. Here in North America at least gaming is still huge. I think it's more that people are bored with Nintendo's games and aren't buying as many of their games. After all they don't have nearly as many Cube million sellers as they had N64 ones. The industry as a whole doesn't really have to expand to new groups as much as Nintendo themselves do, since right now they don't really appeal to anyone but diehard fans.

The industry as a whole has more mass appeal then it ever has while Nintendo has never had less mass appeal as they do right now. They're the ones who are niche. It is their arrogant nature that assumes that their situation represents the industry as a whole.

Though it's odd that at the same time both Nintendo and the rest of the industry have become more generic and sequel reliant yet their popularity with the general public have gone in completely opposite directions.

Quote

---

Originally posted by: Ian Sane
I'm wondering if when Nintendo says the industry is niche what they subconsciously really mean is that Nintendo is niche. Nintendo has always greatly overestimated their position in the industry. With the Cube they seemed completely oblivious to the fact that the N64 was a flop and that "well we're Nintendo" wasn't going to be enough by itself to sell consoles. Many times they have made decisions where it seems like they thought they were still the market leader and could get away with things that no one in their current position could get away with.

So it's not unbelievable that they would view their own situation as something that applies to the entire industry. Nintendo is niche. They've fallen into a rut of making games staring Nintendo franchise characters for Nintendo fans. There's a core group of people that eat up everything they release and few outside that group care about them at all. That is the very definition of niche. Nintendo also talks about how people are bored with today's gaming or aren't buying as many games. Here in North America at least gaming is still huge. I think it's more that people are bored with Nintendo's games and aren't buying as many of their games. After all they don't have nearly as many Cube million sellers as they had N64 ones. The industry as a whole doesn't really have to expand to new groups as much as Nintendo themselves do, since right now they don't really appeal to anyone but diehard fans.

The industry as a whole has more mass appeal then it ever has while Nintendo has never had less mass appeal as they do right now. They're the ones who are niche. It is their arrogant nature that assumes that their situation represents the industry as a whole.

Though it's odd that at the same time both Nintendo and the rest of the industry have become more generic and sequel reliant yet their popularity with the general public have gone in completely opposite directions.

---

I don't recall N64 being a flop, sure it didn't sell as many as PS1 but it still did quite well when it came to game sales. Not only that but it kicked off digital sticks on controllers, if it wasn't for Nintendo being, what Ian calls "Niche" then we would probaly still be playing games with a digital pad.

"What is wrong with you? If you don't think the industry is on the wrong track I give you Shadow the Hedgehog. A Sonic spinoff with guns. And you're going to tell me that isn't the bastardization of one of gamings greatest franchises?"

I never said the industry isn't on the wrong track, just that it isn't niche.

And I'm pretty f*cking tired of the arguement that for Nintendo to gain market share in any way means they have to bastardize their franchises and add blood and all that other stuff. That's a weak arguement and no one suggests that Nintendo should do that. So stop using it. Nintendo's market share problems are directly the result of them being clueless dolts who screw routine stuff up, their inability to market anything, their generally dickheaded attitude towards pretty much any other company, and their inability (or perhaps refusal) to provide any decent variety in their own games beyond endless franchise spinoffs that only appeal to the core Nintendo group.

Also, I'd like to know whether or not they're actually going to use displacement mapping.

Displacement mapping has no place in games since it requires a VERY highpoly basemesh to be applied to and could just as well be baked into the mesh, giving much better results. Use normalmapping and its various tricks instead.

Game difficulty has dropped like a rock.

Not only that, we've become better. As a kid I never managed to beat Super Mario Land. Now I breeze through it in half an hour without dying more than maybe twice.

Quote

---

Originally posted by: KDR_11k
Also, I'd like to know whether or not they're actually going to use displacement mapping.

Displacement mapping has no place in games since it requires a VERY highpoly basemesh to be applied to and could just as well be baked into the mesh, giving much better results. Use normalmapping and its various tricks instead.

---

::Is confused by what displacement mapping is::

Regardless of my confusion on displacement mapping, I feel we will all be fairly impressed by the graphical output of the Revolution.

Quote

---

Nintendo is niche. They've fallen into a rut of making games staring Nintendo franchise characters for Nintendo fans. There's a core group of people that eat up everything they release and few outside that group care about them at all. That is the very definition of niche.

---

"Mario Party 7 and Super Mario Strikers were two of the top selling games across all formats last month. This is certainly all thanks to the small legion of Nintendo fanboys!"

Well I didn't say the legion was small. The franchise games still sell but how relevant are they to anyone outside Nintendo's fans? The only people I ever hear talk about Nintendo franchise games these days aside from Zelda are Nintendo fans or hardcore game nuts who try out everything. Certainly not many people are buying a Nintendo console to play Mario spinoffs. I justify my reasoning for Nintendo to make new franchises by the simple fact that the Cube sold like crap and its top games were mostly franchise titles. So thus the old franchises don't sell systems like the killer apps of a console should. Meanwhile the Xbox rose from nothing based on the success of Halo which was a brand new franchise and the GTA was the hot franchise this gen when before it was mostly just a cult series that no one guessed would become as huge as it did. If Mario still sells consoles then why did Super Mario Sunshine fail to sell Cubes like Nintendo wanted it to? How come the franchise dominated Cube lost to the previously unknown Xbox?

Remember that the Playstation has dominated for almost ten years now. There are people who have played games for years that have never played a Nintendo game. The familiarity isn't there. Mario is old and young gamers don't identify with him. Nintendo's huge portable resurgance was the result of Pokemon which was brand new and a whole new group of gamers identified with it.

Well I dunno, more people in America bought a GameCube last month than an Xbox (or Xbox 360), while two Mario whore-out games topped the sales charts. Obviously people are buying the system for these games!

(While good stuff like F-Zero GX continues to fail)

"Well I dunno, more people in America bought a GameCube last month than an Xbox (or Xbox 360), while two Mario whore-out games topped the sales charts. Obviously people are buying the system for these games!"

Wow. The Cube beat a console that is more or less discontinued and a console that is suffering severe shortages.

Obviously the franchises still sell systems to a degree but not at the level Nintendo expects out of them. Nintendo needs something with the selling power of GTA3 or Halo or if you go last gen Super Mario 64 or Goldeneye. Nothing on the Cube was a huge runaway success. So logically something beyond the familiar franchises has to emerge because those alone aren't cutting it. Nintendo wants the Rev to sell better than the Cube. If the existing franchises were only able to sell the Cube as much as it did, where a brand new entry to the console market outsold it, how can they sell more Revs? Who that didn't buy a Cube for Mario is going to suddenly buy a Rev for Mario?

Nintendo's plan for the Cube didn't work. They got creamed and performed lower than their own expectations. Thus they should rethink the plan. A major part of the Cube plan was emphasis on the franchises. The whole "Who are you?" campaign was built around the familiar franchises. That marketing campaign didn't work. The emphasis on franchises didn't work. Thus it makes no sense to continue to rely so much on franchises the next time around. The franchises should still be there but they shouldn't rely so much on them like they did before. The only way Mario will sell Revs is if the new controller allows for a Super Mario 64 calibur reinventing of the franchise.

Quote

---

Obviously the franchises still sell systems to a degree but not at the level Nintendo expects out of them.

---

Quote

---

while two Mario whore-out games topped the sales charts.

---

Quote

---

Well I didn't say the legion was small. The franchise games still sell but how relevant are they to anyone outside Nintendo's fans?

---

Alright, talk down to me here. Because, from my understanding, displacement mapping only requires a low poly base which is then expanded to about 3 bazillion polys, which are then remodeled, then they're put into the oven and shrinky-dinked into a managebable, but highly detailed low polygon count model.

Displacement mapping is basically a texture consisting of vectors that each vertex (corner of a polygon) is displaced by. It's what is used in ZBrush, a popular application for adding organic details to highpoly (cinematic quality) models. The resulting highpoly model can be used to calculate normalmaps (textures consisting of vectors that define the texel's normal vector for lighting calculations), aka Dot3 bumpmaps, which allow the realtime lighting to react properly to details that aren't there (not in the model, only on the texture). Any graphics card that's at least a GeForce 2 or has shader support (the GF2 didn't but supported dot3) will be able to display those. Games using them include Far Cry, Doom 3, Half-Life 2, Deus Ex: Invisible War, Chronicles of Riddick, Halo 2* and Thief 3. Unless Nintendo explicitely asked for shaders to be removed from the Hollywood chip, normalmaps will be possible on the Rev. The game never sees the displacement or highpoly models that were used to create the normalmaps (unless it's Doom 3 which has the normalmap generator built into the game binary).

*= Halo 2 used handpainted normalmaps, they weren'T generated from a highpoly source.

So thus the old franchises don't sell systems like the killer apps of a console should.

The old franchises would sell consoles like killer apps should if they were used to create killer apps. Remember, killer apps have to be both excellently executed and bring something new to the table. Super Mario Bros. created a genre. Final Fantasy VII introduced levels of cinematography never seen in games before. Mario 64 was the first 3d Jump and Run that was worth its salt. Halo introduced vehicles and coop to console FPS. GTA 3 reinvented the franchise to give it the best parts of an arcade racer and a 3d shooter, giving nearly unprecedented levels of freedom to players. Metroid Prime brings Metroid-style progression to the FPS genre (FPSes tend to be very linear otherwise, just as sidescrollers were before).

We have to realize that most companies only have 1 or 2 "killer app franchises", while Nintendo has multiple ones, in addition to the constant creation of new ones like Advance Wars, Animal Crossing, Pikmin along with others. The problem with Nintendo's sales have nothing to do with their personal franchises, but their image, and lack of other choices. It is tough to sell systems when you are the only one making worthwhile games for it, it is a fact that gamers like variety. Anyway on a side note, I really wouldn't call Halo as a game bringing something new to the table , it is basically a copy of much better PC FPS. I would go over some of the other choices for "new to the table" games, but I don't feel like. Let's just say I feel alot of those games mentioned are what is causing gaming to stagnate, and proof that gamers are easily impressed now days .

There is no such thing as a "killer app franchise", killer apps are usually either new IPs or severe changes to an old franchise. Once it's a franchise it loses killer app potential because it has already defined its fanbase and gotten its clones (some of which may be superior, e.g. everything Blizzard makes).

Anyway on a side note, I really wouldn't call Halo as a game bringing something new to the table , it is basically a copy of much better PC FPS.

Vehicles that blend seamlessly into an FPS (and are properly implemented, nopt Counterstrike's stupid steerable blocks) were only present in Tribes, Codename: Eagle and G-NOME AFAIK. Tribes has no coop, C:E had severe bugs and G-NOME was mostly a mech sim. Also Halo included a completely new scenario (i.e. franchise). Killer apps either form a new franchise or redefine an existing one.

KDR just summed up my thoughts on killer app franchises perfectly. What really makes a game a killer app is the uniqueness of it. Once the game becomes a franchise it is no longer unique so it loses that appeal. The very nature of a killer app is that you HAVE to buy new console to get that experience. You didn't HAVE to buy a Gamecube to experience a full 3D platformer and that's why Super Mario Sunshine wasn't a killer app. When Super Mario 64 came out though you absolutely HAD to buy an N64 to experience it. There was no other option.

Yeah, KDR and Ian have it right with regard to killer apps.

People keep saying that Nintendo has been so successful because of their franchises. This is ridiculous. Look at the biggest games in the Mario series, in the Zelda series, indeed, the biggest Nintendo games period and you will see that Nintendo hasn't been so successful merely because they've slapped a brand on a videogame, but because even though Mario 64 had Mario's face on it, you didn't think AT ALL of previous mario games while playing it...well, that is unless you stomped on a goomba. (going further, the disappointing Sunshine, Windwaker and DoubleDash games DID feel like sequels instead of like Nintendo sequels in my opinion...)

This is the same issue I have with people who complain about Nintendo sequels. Mario 64 was a sequel, so was Zelda: OoT, so was Mario Kart 64, so was Zelda: LttP, Mario 3, Kirby Superstar, and so many other marquee Nintendo titles. I'd rather have a "Nintendo Sequel" than a new game from any other company.

~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

So basically every Nintendo game on the Rev will be a killer app. Actually, almost any single game will be killer app (as long as its good of course) now that I think about it.

"So basically every Nintendo game on the Rev will be a killer app."

I guess potentially it could be. It's not just uniqueness alone though that sells. People have to be interested in the unique experience. So that relates a fair bit to marketing and actually having the unique game be really good. A unique turd isn't going to be a killer app nor is a unique game that one knows about. The potential is there though. I remember when the N64 came out practically every game Nintendo announced was a potential killer app because of the big change to 3D. If it wasn't for the lack of games that system could have killed Sony. For the first few years it was like every N64 game meant something.

The "people know about it" factor doesn't just relate to marketing. An overuse of a franchise could hide the uniqueness as well. A lot of Mario games get released and for the most part they're still fairly unique from each other. But the general public doesn't know that. They just see 8 Mario games a year and assume Nintendo is just rehashing to all hell. Slapping franchises into every game could hide the uniqueness hidden within.

The very nature of a killer app is that you HAVE to buy new console to get that experience.

Like mantidor said, that's EXACTLY why the Revolution is the only console that can actually make these killer apps possible. Now all we have to do is wait for the software..

"Like mantidor said, that's EXACTLY why the Revolution is the only console that can actually make these killer apps possible."

Why? How come someone can't create a good unique game on the PS3? You don't have to completely reinvent a controller to make creative games. GTA3 is the killer app for the PS2 and it doesn't use any special features that were not available on the PS1 aside from the better hardware. It was literally the exact same controller but DMA created a game that required one to buy a PS2 (at first anyway) or miss out.

Quote

---

Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"Like mantidor said, that's EXACTLY why the Revolution is the only console that can actually make these killer apps possible."

Why? How come someone can't create a good unique game on the PS3? You don't have to completely reinvent a controller to make creative games. GTA3 is the killer app for the PS2 and it doesn't use any special features that were not available on the PS1 aside from the better hardware. It was literally the exact same controller but DMA created a game that required one to buy a PS2 (at first anyway) or miss out.

---

Yes.

I see. I misread it. I read it as the Rev is the only console capable of killer apps. Yeah I'd say killer apps on the Rev couldn't be duplicated, unless they were a killer app that used the regular controller shell which is possible. Though I doubt Nintendo would make such a game.

Ok, I'll admit I haven't quite finished reading the whole thread but this is interesting to boot.


(From an inflation calculator using the Consumer Index)

What cost $199.99 in 1985 would cost $354.91 in 2005.
Also, if you were to buy exactly the same products in 2005 and 1985,
they would cost you $199.99 and $112.69 respectively.

So lets do a little math. In all actuality each Rev , taking in account inflation, that is sold will be worth $154.92 less than if that was instead sold as a NES at it's launch date. So it takes roughly two Revs at a $199.99 price point to equal the same amount of money for Nintendo as a single NES at launch. When you look at it this way. Yes it does seem that the Rev is due for a price hike. I mean you can only be $199 for so long. Games consoles, no matter how much they are, are not impulse buys. Anything that is not the size to easily shop lift will not be an impulse buy. At the very least you have to gauge whether you'll have room for it in the car or whether you want to carry it. Ther are other reasons but that's the best I can think of right this second.

Ok I just finished reading this and since I'm the last post I'm going to just edit it. On the whole Mario sports games. They are solid games with loose neat ideas like powerups and weird styles of play that you couldn't do without the trust that a franchise name brings. Just remember that I believe it was Sega that made a soccer game that was different like Super Strikes is for the Cube a couple years back but no one wanted to take a chance with it so it's gone now.

On another note. Does anyone else see anything wrong on that top selling list? Why is Luigi Mansion and Smash Brothers both on it. Those are pretty much launch titles. Grant it that Smash Brothers is an excellent game that everyone recommends while Luigi mansion might be good, I haven't put serious time in it, but it really doesn't seem ot have the clout of Smash Brothers. Yet there they are on the list in the end of a console lifetime. That's unprecedent almost. Most of the time launch titles do not dominate like that throughout the whole lifetime of the system. Because just be virtue of being on the top like that most people who own a system will have it compared to the newer games. It's just odd and can be a sign of how weak the titles were this time around.

Anything that is not the size to easily shop lift will not be an impulse buy.

Diamond ring?

Anyway, about the $200 price point, you have to take into consideration how much technology has improved and how much cheaper it is these days. I agree that with inflation and all it's tough to keep the price constant, but I'm confident that Nintendo will deliver.

IceCold: He didn't say that anything you could shoplift is an impulse buy, he merely said the opposite.

Hence the tongue.. but yeah, his reasoning didn't include items that are the size to easily shoplift; so whether or not they are impulse buys is ambiguous.

Ironically enough I know more people who bought a diamond ring on impulse than a game console. Also handhelds seem to also be bought more on impulse than home consoles. (I had a friend pick up a PSP on a whim. Just because and hevwas ho humming just a little earlier in the week about maybe getting a game.)

Quote

---

Originally posted by: Mario

Quote

---

Well I didn't say the legion was small. The franchise games still sell but how relevant are they to anyone outside Nintendo's fans?

---

Considering Mario sports games sell more than 3/4ths of thier sales a year after release / Players Choice, i'd say they are more relevant to other people than Nintendo fans.

Let's have a look at the top selling GC games last month...

1. Mario Party 7 342,206
2. Super Mario Strikers 310,427
3. Super Mario Sunshine 140,716
4. Mario Superstar Baseball 125,198
5. Pokemon XD: Gale of Darkness 109,258
6. Super Smash Bros. Melee 107,552
7. Mario Kart: Double Dash!! 97,006
8. Animal Crossing 96,304
9. Luigi's Mansion 67,635
10. Mario Golf: Toadstool Tour 62,998

Whoops, those games must have accidently been bought by parents when their son clearly asked for a car radio, right?

Mario games are what kept the GameCube alive, if Mario didn't sell 20 million GameCubes, what did?

---

Because it's an awesome game...

If last month wasn't a huge holiday month, the numbers might mean something more. Mario games are really easy parent and grandparent buys. Buying a Mario game used to mean you were buying the best game on the system.

And for the record, Super Smash Bros. is not a Mario game any more that it is a Zelda game. It is its own franchise.

I'll tell you partly why SSBM still sells, there's a national tournament scene for it.

"On another note. Does anyone else see anything wrong on that top selling list? Why is Luigi Mansion and Smash Brothers both on it. Those are pretty much launch titles. Grant it that Smash Brothers is an excellent game that everyone recommends while Luigi mansion might be good, I haven't put serious time in it, but it really doesn't seem ot have the clout of Smash Brothers. Yet there they are on the list in the end of a console lifetime. That's unprecedent almost. Most of the time launch titles do not dominate like that throughout the whole lifetime of the system. Because just be virtue of being on the top like that most people who own a system will have it compared to the newer games. It's just odd and can be a sign of how weak the titles were this time around."

I don't think it's a weakness of titles. Well SSBM probably still is the best game on the console but Luigi's Mansion never was. I think it's more a weakness of marketing and it demonstrates how largely ignored the Cube was. Luigi and SSBM come from a small period of time where there was legitimate widespread interest in the Cube. At launch everyone was talking about PS2 vs. Gamecube vs. Xbox. It was going to be this crazy console war and anyone could win. Less than a year after launch though no one really felt the Cube had a chance so the buzz and hype surrounding it dried up. Thus the launch and near launch titles got more publicity than all the other Cube games. Luigi's Mansion was promoted as the flagship title and SSB was widely considered the best Cube game. So they were the most hyped games during the Cube's most popular period and thus they have a huge marketing edge over the other titles. If someone buys a Cube on the whim but doesn't really know much about the library those two games are going to be some of the first titles they check out because they're ones they've heard of.

Prior to Pokemon I didn't really follow the Gameboy so during that time the games I knew of more than any others were Tetris and Super Mario Land. Being the first major games I paid attention to them when the Gameboy was fresh and exciting. But I never got one and didn't follow it after that so I didn't know many other titles. It's the same thing with the Cube. If you haven't followed the Cube you're not going to know much else beyond the launch titles.

Quote

---

What cost $199.99 in 1985 would cost $354.91 in 2005.

So lets do a little math. In all actuality each Rev , taking in account inflation, that is sold will be worth $154.92 less than if that was instead sold as a NES at it's launch date. So it takes roughly two Revs at a $199.99 price point to equal the same amount of money for Nintendo as a single NES at launch. When you look at it this way. Yes it does seem that the Rev is due for a price hike. I mean you can only be $199 for so long.

---