Topic: Revolution taking 1st place in sales/marketshare? And what would that mean to us?

[JonLeung]

As we were saying in the topic about the Revolution being at least a "second console" for every gamer, that is, a system that's unique and cheap enough to warrant being purchased even if one owned an Xbox 360 or PS3, we pretty much understood that to be a strategy to get Nintendo back into first place.

How likely do you guys think it would be, though, honestly? We can all see that the Nintendo Revolution is something different. But for the first year or so, when people have recently spent multiple hundreds of dollars on an Xbox 360 and/or PS3, they may not feel the desire to put down a couple more for the Revolution even though it's cheaper and revolutionary. There will be enough games on the other two to keep them busy or distracted from Nintendo stuff as well.

Could Nintendo actually get back into first place? Will "Nintendo" once again be nearly synonymous with video games in general? What would that mean to the industry? What would that mean for Nintendo fans?  What would that mean for those anti-Nintendo fanboys that refuse to even accept Nintendo's contributions to the gaming world?

I'm a big Nintendo fan, and I would like to see Nintendo at least do better.  Maybe I underestimate the revolutionariness of the system or overestimate the stubbornness of the world to continue excluding Nintendo in all their game-related talk.

[Ian Sane]

For Nintendo to win back first place with the Rev I'd say one of two things has to happen.

1. The remote really does become the standard Nintendo wants it to be and gaming is forever changed.  To pull this off Nintendo needs to ultimate game to sell this concept.  Something as significant as Super Mario Bros or Super Mario 64 that influences all games that follow it.  This is doable because Nintendo's done it twice before but it's still incredibly iffy just because games like that don't out to often and it's incredibly exception for Nintendo to have even done it twice.  To do it three times would undoubtably make them by far the greatest game developer of all time.

2. The non-gamer market embraces the Rev and turns out to be so huge that the non-gamer console sells more systems then the gamer consoles.  Though at that point I would consider the Rev as something else belonging to a different market and regardless of sales the PS3 or X360 would be the ideal choice for gamers and would still get most of the "gamer" games.  Who cares if one console sells better if its target demo is a group entirely outside of the current gaming market.  The existing gamers might as well stick to the consoles where the games designed for them are still made.

I think it would benefit us best if scenario 1 occured.  In fact scenario 2 would be no different to me then Nintendo going out of business.

It's probably not going to happen though.  I'd say the most realistic postive outcome would be Nintendo going up for a change and increasing their market share.  You have to start winning games before you start winning cups.  I think Nintendo needs a generation of serious recovery before being a threat to the number one position again.

[Avinash_Tyagi]

I think Nintendo could pull off a combination of one and two if it plays its cards right, I mean a launch of Rev with a really good mario game,  Metroid Prime three and Super Smash bros. online would probably sell millions WW, then follow it up like a month or two later with games like Animal Crossing and Nintendogs or something and you'd basically have the greatest launch in history.

[PaLaDiN]

At this point Ian's right, it all depends on the games. Nintendo better have something really special up their sleeves. They've managed to create a golden opportunity to seize the market, now all they have to do is use it.

Ian I wouldn't worry much about 2 because Nintendo has always made and will always make Nintendo games. You're really being paranoid about this for some reason.

I think the most plausible scenario would be Nintendo using number 2 to hook an unprecedented number of people into playing games... at which point the "non-gamers" would become actual gamers and join the rest of us. The way I see it most people ignore games for completely retarded reasons. Games really need a hook that sells them to the populace at large, that makes them just as much a viable entertainment option as movies or music... and once that happens, the gaming market could expand like never before with Nintendo on top.

[JonLeung]

Ian, in your #2 point you make it seems as though the games on the Revolution would be so considerably different from most games as they are today.  I don't think a distinction could be made.  Some people can't tell the difference between computer games and console video games, and they're typically sold in all the same stores or the same sections of stores.  To further divide the games into "computer games, video games, and Revolution games", well, as we all know with the typical "PlayStation or Xbox" questions, most people don't like to make mention of more than two things.

Nintendo knows how to make games - and as revolutionary as their ideals are I believe their games would still have grounding in traditional gameplay.  You may feel more as if you're interacting within a game environment if you're swinging your controller around, but it's still going to be a game in any sense of the word.

Try to tell someone that Animal Crossing or Nintendogs are non-games, and they'll be like "so what are they then?"  They lack a genre, their goals aren't defined...but that doesn't mean they should be sold in a separate section as games.  (There was talk about trying to sell Nintendogs in pet shops, but I've never seen that - but that's only because they believed the dogs were realistic enough and comparable to real dogs.)

I think only the most stubborn gamers would try and lump Revolution games as their own separate entity - but by giving them that honour, they'd also be saying that they deserve their own title, which isn't what they would want.

Basically, what I mean is, if they sell a lot of Revolutions, anyone interested in gaming would have to take notice.

[Spak-Spang]

Ian:  You bring up interesting points with scenero 1.  I would like to add, Nintendo was able to make two industry changing games, because they changed technology, at the same time of creating a great game.  Super Mario Brothers was one of the first graphically pleasing side scrolling adventures.  It had noticably different levels, and created new standards for platforming games.  It obviously became a hit.  Now, if Nintendo hadn't created Super Mario Brothers, EVENTUALLY the industry would have went that direction, but Nintendo did it best and close to first.

With the Nintendo 64 and Super Mario 64 once again Nintendo affected technology with a great game.  Sure Sega beat them to the market with an analog controller, but it sucked compared to the precision that the Nintendo 64 had.  Along with that precision Nintendo showed how to make a 3D platformer.

Since then there hasn't been an industry changing game like Mario Brothers or Mario 64.  The reason why is because technology hasn't changed.  It has stayed the same.

Nintendo is the only company truly set this next generation to come up with that new industry changing event game...because they are embrassing technology change and advancement, and fusing it great new games.

Between the games we all know are coming out.  I suggest that Nintendo probably has 3 games that could change the industry direction.

Mario Revolution easily has the legacy to bring about change.  With the controller the new Mario game can show how truly engaging video games can be to a whole new group of people, and reawaken that since of wonder and magic, I believe is missing from the current generation of video games.

Metriod Prime 3.  Although it is just a first person shooter, it literally could redefine the defination of first person shooter.  Finally you are able to actually point and SHOOT, instead of move a cursor over something and shoot.  The difference is a major change in feel and satisfaction.  This could lead developers to engage in the question, how can I get that new feeling in RPGs, Sports Games, Racing, and so on.

Smash Brothers Revolution:  You say fighting games are impossible with this new controller.  I ask you, to imagine what it might feel like to have complete control of your attacks in pure 360 degree mayhem.  I can easily control my figure with the analog stick and buttons below, and control my fighting with the wand.  If the game plays well, and engages players to think outside the box in terms of fighting, it can awaken a new genre of games.  Since this is also online, expect players to form their own unique fighting styles and techniques that may not have been dreamed up before.  

Revolution is about EXPERIENCING the Game...not just playing it.  With that in mind, nothing the Xbox 360 or Playstation 3 are doing will ever change the experience of games.  And that is what Nintendo did to create its great sphere of influence with Super Mario Brothers, and Super Mario 64 before hand.

[PaLaDiN]

Exactly (JonLeung). I think at this point "non-games" to appeal to "non-gamers" are a necessary Trojan horse to slap people upside the head and get them to notice how good games can be.  

The main hurdle I see is that games like Spak-Spang is talking about don't seem to be that far along. I'd love Nintendo to prove me wrong but SSB Rev's development just started recently and I don't want it to be rushed. That means that, just like the DS, the games that first come out for the Rev will probably be mostly experimental games and ports... it won't really shine until the proper games come out a few months later, and by then people will have formed their opinion of it.

[Spak-Spang]

I want to play a 2D Mario game where I am moving one direction to go left and then popping the control up to jump.  Or Arcing the controlling to jump left or right...or both ways to wall jump.  It could be fun if balanced right.

[Ian Sane]

"Ian, in your #2 point you make it seems as though the games on the Revolution would be so considerably different from most games as they are today."

What I mean is that Nintendo makes something so different to attract non-gamers that they end up making a whole new past time different than gaming.  So they sell more systems but it's like comparing DVD players to i-Pods.  It's like how some people think virtual reality is the same thing as videogames.  I wouldn't consider it that.  To me it's something different.

Spak-Spang I totally get what you're saying about a change in technology bringing about a change in gaming.  The only difference I find though between those examples and the Rev is that the Rev seems forced.  Before Super Mario Bros 2D obviously already existed and there were sidescrollers like Pitfall.  Things seemed to be going in that direction already and Nintendo just made a big impact that speeded things up.  It was the same with Super Mario 64.  Polygon games like Virtua Racing, Virtua Fighter and Star Fox already existed and the Playstation came out a year before and was a console specifically designed for 3D games.  Everyone already thought 3D was the future.

There however isn't really anything pointing towards waving a wand around as the future.  There was the Eyetoy but no one really considered that as anything but a nifty toy.  Before Nintendo took what everyone wanted and showed them how to do it right.  No one really was asking for the Rev concept until Nintendo showed it to us.  Before they took an existing concept and perfected it.  Now they're introducing the concept.  That's a big difference.

I don't think HD is really the future either, not in the sense that anyone is going to use it in such a way that it will change gaming forever.  In fact I don't think anyone can.  I'd say the future for console gaming is online play as it has been tinkered with but not fully broken through yet.  The demand however is there and it really just needs someone to show us the potential of how it can be used.  In other words it needs Nintendo to show us how to do online right.

[Hostile Creation]

You're ignoring one painfully obvious point, Ian.
Once non-gamers begin playing games, THEY BECOME GAMERS.

Some aspects of the Revolution will appeal to people who do not play games (my mother already wants one at the house, and she's lost interest in games since Wave Race 64, up til the DS came out).  Others will appeal immensely to gamers.  Some will be in-between.  It's ignorant to think Nintendo will abandon "gamers".  They'll just lead non-gamers to realize they can enjoy "gamer" games.

[Deguello]

I know.  That's what confuses me so much.  It's not that Nintendo is making and encouraging games like Nintendogs or of Brain Training, or that they are making those games at the expense of "real" games (which they aren't), it is that they are even trying to get those types.  It's like playing video games is some sort of club that they don't want the girls or the older people or the people who have been disenfranchised by analog triggers and R3 buttons.  Or hell, maybe even the Revolution could be somebody's first gaming experience period, and he'll wonder how anybody ever used analog sticks.  But every step of the way they are being assaulted for not catering to the uber-hardcore of their own crowd who dwell on internet message boards criticizing every tiny little thing and blowing everything out of proportion on baseless rumor and conjecture, all of which will mean ZERO in the end.

Its weird where everybody fantasizes that games will one day be like those on the Star Trek holodecks, but will fight and resist every single step towards that goal.

[Avinash_Tyagi]

Quote
Its weird where everybody fantasizes that games will one day be like those on the Star Trek holodecks, but will fight and resist every single step towards that goal.

Your comment is very interesting in that it begs the question why?  What is the cause of this resistance?

Is it due to the fear of change?

The fear that it won't pan out well?

Laziness on the part of the gamer, not wanting to put in the effort which may result due to this greater interaction?

[Ian Sane]

"You're ignoring one painfully obvious point, Ian.
Once non-gamers begin playing games, THEY BECOME GAMERS."

But wouldn't they only be interested in the types of games that brought them to the table?  Like if I'm not interested in games now and require something different to get my attention why would I like the games I was never interested in in the first place?  Wouldn't I just want more of the new different non-games that attracted me in the first place?  I don't think that those who don't play game are intimidated.  I think they're just not interested.  Thus they'll never be "gamers" in the sense that they'll have the same tastes we do.

I see it less as getting people interested in gaming as much as changing gaming to accomodate those that currently aren't interested in it.

"It's like playing video games is some sort of club that they don't want the girls or the older people or the people who have been disenfranchised by analog triggers and R3 buttons."

I like gaming.  If someone else don't like gaming I don't care.  I don't want gaming potentially turned into something I don't like so that those who don't like it can join in.  I hate the idea that everything has to accomodate everybody.  Screw that.  If you don't like something the way it is but a lot of other people do then find something else to do.

[JonLeung]

Quote
Originally posted by: Avinash_Tyagi
Laziness on the part of the gamer, not wanting to put in the effort which may result due to this greater interaction?

That could be one factor.  I'd gotten into some heated discussions with others.  I can point out some of the things I like about Nintendo, but they feel like they don't have to believe me.  They have enough to keep them busy with the competition.  I can insist on my opinion, and though they may agree that there's not much factually "wrong" about what I say, they say "why can't Nintendo advertise this more aggressively if this is as great as you say?"  I'm 25 now, and I've struggled with this most in my high school and university years in particular, as everyone becomes more busy and henceforth can't be bothered to "research" what games are coming out for what consoles.  So if it's not put in their face, they've never heard of it.  And if all that's put in their face is PokĂ©mon, they're not bound to see what else there is.

I think people are just disenfranchised or whatever with Nintendo.  They see Nintendo in last place, so then they see innovations such as those in the Revolution (assuming they've even read anything about it) as an act of desparation.  And with a lack of information at the moment, not even screenshots, the laziness of finding what little there is and their disinterest to begin with keeps them from getting excited.  The market leader, Sony, probably never considered changing games.  Look at their controller.  The buttons are the same.  They just want better graphics.  If not for the "Cell" processor (which could fall by the wayside like the PS2's "Emotion Engine"), you could pretty much say they're sticking with the status quo, and all those who blindly follow them because of their marketing will probably agree that that is fine.  Sure, it's boring compared to what the Revolution promises, but it's a "safe" choice - they'll know what to expect from it.

When Nintendo is ready to begin marketing the Revolution, they should probably demonstrate it in as many places as they can, as often as they can.  The DS tours in Toys R Uses and Best Buys and whatnot last year were nice, but the Revolution, promising so much, should be put in everyone's faces.  Then those who support the Xboxes and PlayStations just because of laziness to follow whatever sounds hot will actually see it as a viable alternative.  Once it gets hot enough, then it'll be easier for the lemmings to follow.

[stevey]

I know nintendo going to be #1 because, $ony in money trouble do to everyone sue them for lot of bad thing, and ms go to sufer do to rushing the 360 soo soon, and both are price$ hiking the game's/system's.

"What would that mean for Nintendo fans?"

Happy hour

"What would that mean for those anti-Nintendo fanboys that refuse to even accept Nintendo's contributions to the gaming world?"

DEATH!!! to the infidels  

[Avinash_Tyagi]

Easy there man, no killing allowed in the system wars.

[Don'tHate742]

I see it this way.

Nintendo is like a buffet. There are people with trays offering small but deeply satisfying finger foods to a sea of potential buffet diners. Once these people actually try the food and acknowledge its rarety, the tray people point them to the buffet where they can help themselves to some more.

Now these people head over, and look! There's more just like that guy said, but they can't help but notice the other wonderful foods (that, although different, are just as tempting and even more satisfying.) So out of plain curiousity, the people take a couple of what they had already, but a variety of foods they've never seen.

[ShyGuy]

The first video game I ever played was a Sears version of Pong when I was three years old. Therefore, Tennis simulations are the only kind of game I am interested in, since that was the type of game that brought me to the table. YEAH.

[Kairon]

The people who would be adversely affected by #2 ("The rise of the non-gamer"), like Ian, are those who are already happy with gaming's nature as is and don't wish it to change. There's nothing wrong with that at all, there will always be a need for hardcore gamers, and there will always be a niche for them. But Nintendo gamers aren't necessarily hardcore gamers. Nintendo gamers are more concerned with the innovations in game design and game nature that Miyamoto brings to the table.

Why do Nintendo gamers enjoy Zelda? It isn't merely a videogame, it is an attempt by Miyamoto to recreate his childhood experiences of discovering and exploring underground caves. Why do we enjoy Pikmin? It's an abstraction of the experience gardening! Where did Mario come from? It came from Miyamoto's day dreams of "invisible blocks" in the air above him. What's the allure of Animal Crossing? The communication and community aspects that Nintendo imbued in it.

At the core of every Nintendo game is not a game, but an idea, an experience, an emotion. And these core values are universal. Others may look at the controller and fear that everything they know will be ending. Nintendo fans look at the controller and see a long line of Nintendo giving them the exact same sense of wonder, excitement, magic and excellence throughtout countless years, games, and control methods.

That's why Nintendo gamers need not fear what the future will bring, need not fear what marketshare Nintendo has, need not fear an explosion of diversity and invention and growth... as long as that same future brings them a Nintendo game.

~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

[ThePerm]

hmm,that is a pretty interesting point. To think that great ideas for games are not from improvements to games, but more to odd things that you think of daily. Only, these odd ideas that you think nothing of become fleshed out video games. I think of weird crap all of the time. My biggest thing right now is thinking about what I would do if Zombies attacked.

[ThePerm]

roar!

edit: damnit it was a double post....roar goes back to like 2000...iv been saying roar for double posts since about then

[MysticGohan24]

Is it me or has perm... gotten really "WEIRD" lately..?
He used to have something constructive yet witty to say.
Now it's like someone related to stevey, hijacked Perms account
and has made a mockery of perm's formal self.

it's a sad site to behold ladies and gentleman.

God help us all!!

[BigJim]

What's interesting to me, which ties into Ian's #1, is that Nintendo odd-numbered consoles (NES, N64) have been the systems with what could be considered the paradigm-shift games. The even-numbers systems (SNES and Cube) were just maturizations of the same technology.

SMB and Mario 3 were killer apps. SMW was good, but didn't really capture the same notoriety since much of the forumla was the same. Mario 64 created the next big change. "3D-done-right." And while the Cube had plenty of solid titles, none of them were over the top successes of the same calibur because, again, much of the formula was the same.

The thing that made SMB and Mario 64 so great was ultimately gameplay. The game proved the technology. If Nintendo makes the case for the controller with a new killer app during this next "paradigm shift," the Revolution can be big.

[King of Twitch]

scenario #3: The Revolution harkens the world back to the old days, where games could be simple, yet exciting at the same time. Kids play videogames with their parents and adults get excited just walking down the Revolution game aisle to try out a vast number of different games that would put the SNES to shame. Controller add-ons stay below $15, and they remind older gamers what it was like begging their parents for ROB or the Super Gameboy or the Super Scope, yet these new nunchuck thingys really change the way certain genres are played. At the same time, the shell controller (packed in w/ the system) allows the hardcore crowd to play more 'serious' games and the new features and tilt functions make the other controllers seem utterly archaic. People forget about graphics because all 3 systems take the same step forward, except for the rich kids who have HDTVs. Mario 128 is a huge game and the controller only makes it that much more addicting. The fans are floored, the nongamers are sucked in, and everyone stops bickering about their stupid insignificant projections because the Revolution is a joy to play.



Ian dies of old age and is buried with his Revolution.

[eljefe]

“The only difference I find though between those examples and the Rev is that the Rev seems forced. Before Super Mario Bros 2D obviously already existed and there were sidescrollers like Pitfall. Things seemed to be going in that direction already and Nintendo just made a big impact that speeded things up…There however isn't really anything pointing towards waving a wand around as the future. There was the Eyetoy but no one really considered that as anything but a nifty toy. Before Nintendo took what everyone wanted and showed them how to do it right. No one really was asking for the Rev concept until Nintendo showed it to us. Before they took an existing concept and perfected it. Now they're introducing the concept. That's a big difference.”

Ian, you seem to have contradicted yourself a little. The existence of the Eyetoy (and that X-wand thing by MS) are proof that 3-D motion as a gameplay feature was “an existing concept”. It appears as if Nintendo is trying to perfect it with the Revolution. Whether it will meet with the same level of success as its predecessors remains to be seen.