Nintendo Confirms New Console In 2005 597
GweeDo writes "It is official. Nintendo will be releasing their next console right along side Sony's PS3 in 2005. The news was released here by cube.ign.com. They also went on to say that Retro Studies is working on a Prequel to Metroid Prime. The best quote to all you people that said Nintendo was leaving the console market is this: 'Iwata emphasized Nintendo's plans to stick in the console industry by saying, "When we withdraw from the home game console, that's when we withdraw from the video game business."'"
Whew (Score:5, Interesting)
I just wish the plethura of games that PS/2 and XBox compete with also appear on the cube (and further systems).
Dumpster wars (Score:3, Interesting)
Good for them! (Score:4, Interesting)
Good for them and us (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Good for them! (Score:5, Interesting)
Great comment from article... (Score:4, Interesting)
consumers today apparently don't want to sit in front of the television to play games for hours and hours.
Really? Why has Sony sold about 8 billion* PS2's?
However, it is good to see Nintendo vowing not to bow out... (And to see them planning a release around the same time as the other boxes.) Looks like they learned their lesson (show up late, get no pie.)
*estimated
Hope it's backward-compatible (Score:1, Interesting)
I don't know.. i feel like i ought to be annoyed at nintendo for springing this on us after such a short time. Thing is, though, if they keep making consoles as small, relatively cheap, and with as many great games as the gamecube has (i've already got more games that i absolutely love for the gamecube than i had for the entire run of the Playstation.. and i've had this thing like a month now), i wouldn't really mind paying $150 every few years.
Especially because i suspect were nintendo to release a keyboard and hard drive for the gamecube, and announce some networked games, tomorrow, and the drive/keyboard/broadband adapter cost $150 all together, i'd probably buy it. And a bunch of the PS2 people will probably spend about as much as that on their keyboard/HD/broadband combo as soon as the online Final Fantasy game comes out. That in mind, a new game system coming out just a scant three years after the last one came into its own doesn't sound so bad.
That said, God dammit, nintendo, where the fuck are our internet-playable gamecube games? When are you going to realize this is something people actually want? Even if "internet playable" just means "it's an ordianary 2-player video game, but player 2 is in Ann Arbor"? Wouldn't the fact that all of your first run of the online adapters sold out the first day you had them in stores even though the only thing you can play with it is a mediocre port of an old dreamcast games have been a tiny clue?? Are we at least going to get some internet playable games when your next-gen console comes out in 2005? I'd settle for that.
-- super ugly ultraman
Right On! (Score:5, Interesting)
Man, I can't believe someone would consider Nintendo a mom and pop operation. That's just so ridiculous. Listen, just because a company isn't Microsoft, that doesn't make them "good." Do a little bit of research before you spout off.
Megaton? (Score:2, Interesting)
!Console = !Gaming ? (Score:2, Interesting)
This kind of comment really dissapoints me, personally. To see a perfectly successful game producer limit themselves to consoles, especially when then line between computers and consoles grows increasingly vauge, seems counter-productive these days.
We already know that the profit (if any) from the consoles themselves pales in comparison to the licensing fees they get from other companies using their patented hardware. Nintendo makes alot of excellent games. What do you really think of when you think of Nintendo's greatest successes? It's not any of the hardware, it's the software, the names we know like Mario, Metroid, and Zelda. Leaving the console business doesn't mean leaving these household names behind, as Sega has found out, accidentally as it may be.
No news from the gaming industry would please me more then to see Nintendo in the PC gaming business. Even my mom "gets" the idea that having excellent games distributed exclusively for various $200 pieces of hardware doesn't make sense.
Young Market? (Score:3, Interesting)
I wonder if Nintendo will continue to chase after the young gamer market. The biggest slam I hear from people about the 'cube is that it's all kids stuff. Having an 8 year old, I don't mind seeing all the titles out that are kid friendly... but with the new embrace of the older male market with games like GTA and the like, I'm wondering if Nintendo will forsake its past and try and get a chunk of the 18-30 market.
Re:Good for them! (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course, their stance isn't hypocritical. They haven't given up on these old games, they're still making money off of them! Why would they want people downloading Donkey Kong for free when you can still buy the eReader cards for $5 a pop?
unusual for Nintendo (Score:3, Interesting)
Their usual strategy is to wait until their competitor is about to launch their new console, then announce that they (Nintendo) are coming out with one too. That way they can cut into the potential market for their competitor's console, as a sizeable chunk of gamers (especially the younger ones with a lot less disposable income) decide to wait for the Nintendo offering.
The Outside Scoop (Score:3, Interesting)
Just my take from the outside.
Re:Whew (Score:2, Interesting)
On a bit of a diversion, does any one feel that Microsoft are making mistakes in buying up PC developers. For me PC gaming ethos is completely different to that of the consoles. One is generally a single player experience, tending to involve the mouse, whilst the other is a gamepad, sit aorund on the couch with a bunch of mates and have a few after pub beers.
Re:Pretty gutzy move. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Gamecube support, GBA connections, more questio (Score:5, Interesting)
In some ways, backwards compatibility hurt the PS2. I remember reading in its first year that Sony was having trouble convincing developers to make PS2 games instead of PSX games. And the developers had good reasons:
- proven development tools for the PSX
- PSX had a huuuuuge market share compared to the PS2, even after several months
- writing a game for the PSX meant the PS2 market was open to the game, but not vice versa
Now, obviously the first reason applies to any new console, but given the general crappiness of the PS2's development tools (by every account I ever read they were shoddy as hell -- hopefully Sony paid attention and will do better on that score with the PS3) developers were leary of committing time to learning the new tools and learning the ins and outs of the new hardware given that with no new effort they could make a PSX game that'd work on 25 million units.What you ended up with was a whole whack-load of developers who teetered on the fence for the first year of the PS2 trying to figure out when the best time was to jump on the bandwagon. Without the the backwards compatibility, certainly some of those developers would have jumped to the PS2 earlier. Okay, so Sony wasn't exactly hurting for games, but you have to wonder what some of those games from the end of the PSX era might have looked like a on a console that was truly capable of 3D rendering! :)
Devil's advocation: (Score:3, Interesting)
Do you get as annoyed about being coerced into spending $150-$200 every two or so years for an incrementally improved version of your operating system that doesn't really add much [amazon.com], as you do about being coerced into spending $150-$200 every three or so years for a completely new and improved game console?
Just curious.
Re:2005/2006 is going to be interesting (Score:2, Interesting)
What's interesting is that this is probably why the Gameboy is still around today (in Advance form). Even today, you can still play the first-generation gameboy games, and there is no real competition in the handheld market.
Makes me wonder if backward compatability will continue to be a trend in the next console wave.
--paul
Great games... if only they were for PS2 (Score:5, Interesting)
I like the software but not the hardware... but only because I already have a PS2. I'm getting very tired of these "For this particular console only" games. Each console has its merits and I chose PS2 because I had a PS1 that I loved, and I still had a lot of PS1 games. Now that I have a PS2, I don't want to buy an XBox or a GameCube. I already have a great console, why should I have to buy 2 more so that I can play all of the games that are out?
Further, where am I going to put two more consoles and how am I going to hook it all together? I have two consoles plugged in now (N64 is the other) and I don't have much free space in my gaming table (a coffee table with shelves in the front where I put my consoles and all the games, game mags, game books, etc.
Why can't we have one console to rule them all?
Seriously though, I think I would be more likely to pay more for a console that could play games from 2 of the big 3 than buying two consoles. If there was a PS2 that was licensed and able to also play GameCube games, or XBox games, at least it would help with my space issue. As it is, I have to consider the extra cost of another console, new controllers and other accessories, and then find a place to stick it.
Anyway, back to my original reason for posting... I like Nintendo games. They have some great games available for their console but I would prefer if they were to follow Sega and stop making hardware. As it is, they aren't getting much money from me (I buy N64 games still - there were some good games for that system) but if they were to release their games for PS2, I would buy a lot of them. I don't know what kind of profits they make on their hardware, or how that would be affected if they were to license their games for PS2, but I think overall they would sell more games because there are more PS2's in the world than GameCubes... and if they did a tri-license and included XBox, they would do even better... but one has to wonder how many consoles they would sell if their games ran on PS2 and XBox. I bet the hardware numbers would go in the shitter real quick.
Maybe you can clear this up for me: What are the advantages (real world, not just statistical) of the GameCube? If all else was equal, would there be a good reason to get a GameCube over a PS2 or XBox?
Re:On the other hand... (Score:3, Interesting)
The New Nintendo (Score:3, Interesting)
It's been pointed out in this thread that Nintendo was basically the Microsoft of the game industry in the late 1980's (90%+ of the industry, antitrust lawsuits - ring a bell). The difference is that everyone still liked them (how could we not - Mario! Zelda!)
Since then Nintendo has fallen from the king of the hill, partly due to the fact that the hill is so much bigger nowadays, but also due to some bad decisions. The Genesis came out before the SNES and Nintendo played catchup until right before the end (Donkey Kong Country pulled them slightly ahead of Sega's numbers, but Sega was still quite the contender). Then with the Nintendo 64, Nintendo pretty much got cocky. I loved the N64 but lots of the decisions they made (cartridges, no Metroid, etc.) were bad. Plus they were doing things like relying on Pokemon, franchises and the children's market. It was as if they didn't realize a portion of their target audience were now grownups
Now we have the new Nintendo. The old Nintendo stayed with a moribund format, the new Nintendo is DVD-based (though 3" DVD's). The old Nintendo wouldn't let a Metroid game be made, the new Nintendo released two last year. The old Nintendo would have had only one good game at launch, and a Mario one at that - the new Nintendo had lots of good games, none of which were Mario, and the Luigi game they did was completely non-traditional. The old (old) Nintendo would never have let a dark, violent game on their console, the new Nintendo scored the exclusives on the Resident Evil franchise. The old Nintendo would forget its roots, the new Nintendo rerelases old NES games in the form of a pack of cards. For that matter, only Nintendo would have thought of that. The old Nintendo would have swamped its console with Pokemon - the new Nintendo has yet to.
The old Nintendo would just tell its customers what they want, the new Nintendo asks its customers what they think of Xbox live [nintendo.com].
Imagine what Microsoft would be like if, in ten years, they fell from the top of the heap and had to fight for customers all of a sudden.
I'm a longtime admitted Nintendo fanboy and it's becoming easier to do so.
Re:Yup..me too (Score:3, Interesting)
I went dormant for 2 years and played no games, at all. I bought a Gamecube when Starfox(moan) came out a few moths ago, and got Metroid(yippy!) for holidays. I also bought the PS2 recently for DVD/Gaming. The Gamecube has better sound and graphics. The realtime hair in Starfox had me staring at the title screen for a few minutes the first time.
Nintendo pushes the edge of gaming while others walk the edge. Nintendo games have always set the bar for everyone else. 2 words...Shigeru Miyamoto.
I saw an Xbox once at my cousin's. Couldn't get over the size of it. Good graphics...shitty console IMHO.
Re:Great games... if only they were for PS2 (Score:3, Interesting)
Just one universal format that you can buy from various companies. Like VHS for videotapes. You can buy a vcr from whoever you want and it will play all of the movies at Blockbuster (not the dvd's obviously but AFAIK, all of them on dvd are also on vhs). You don't have to look at the box to see if the movie will play on your Sony VCR. You just rent whatever you want, go home and watch it. You have a Sony VCR because that particular model was either super cheap, or had the features you wanted/needed/whatever.
What if this happened with gaming consoles? What if instead of getting a console because it has a certain title, we could get the console that we really like, and play all of the games on it? It would make life much simpler for us gamers and would force the console developers to give us a real reason to buy their console over someone elses. As it is, how much pressure is Sony under to develop a kick-ass PS3? Some, but not as much as you might think. They already know they have tons of support from game developers. They already know they will have tons of games. So the XBox and whatever new console Nintendo comes out with won't be as large of a threat. This would also open the market to more competition. Other companies could make consoles without having to worry about getting game developers signed on. They would focus on making the best console they can make and that would be it. So we would end up with better consoles and more choice as to what we want to play on the console we paid our hard earned money for. As it is, you have to shell out about $700 to buy all three consoles, extra controllers, and other accessrories if you want to be able to buy any game on the shelf without a care as to which console it is for.
Re:Obsolete hardware (Score:3, Interesting)
The whole thing dies within two years as developers rush to plan for the new platform (with its more expensive games). This short development window has got to impact negatively on both the overall creativity of the games and the full use of a console's potential.
Do you mean "PC" instead of console? Doom 3 might as well come with a new video card.
Game on a PC, and you'll have the fun of
Plus, over the course of a year or so, you get to watch your "screamin gaming rig" get slooower and slooooower as PC programmers forget about you.
PC games are a ghetto of crappy shareware, super-violent FPS's, and studies in obsessive resource micromanagement (Warcraft). PC gamers have to develop "mods" just to keep the games remotely interesting. You'll never see creative gaming approaches like Crazy Taxi, Rez, or Frequency on a PC...and quite frankly, it's because PC gamers don't demand anything other than an excuse to drop big money on the latest CPUs and video cards.
Sites like Tom's Hardware and Anandtech are group therapy for spendthrifts who attach their masculinity to their Quake framerates. On the other hand, console fans are every day people, who don't want the hassle of constantly upgrading, downloading drivers, and playing the same rehashes over and over.
Re:Fucking Retarded.... (Score:2, Interesting)
No judgement on the XBox, as it's only had one generation, but expect Halo to keep going as well.
Mind you, many of the games I mentioned are good, but please understand that the only "variety" you see is mostly superficial. Gameplay styles remain similar across all 3 platforms.
Don't knock fun games with old characters, because the alternative is crap games with new characters.
Apples and Oranges (Score:5, Interesting)
Becuase Sony doesn't seem to care much about their online gaming product. Their support is terrible. My Sony Network adapter worked sporadically, and I had to deal with inept customer service people via email to try and figure out whether or not it was a faulty adapter or a router setting that was keeping things from working properly.
Xbox Live on the other hand works much more efficiently, and becuase M$ is charging for it, they actually want to help with support. Sony has nothing to gain if I play SOCOM or Twisted Metal Online. Their business model is all wrong.
So why do I own a Gamecube and an Xbox? Simple. The common game list is much smaller than Xbox and PS2. Gamecube has "fun" games like Animal Crossing and Zelda that are somewhat cartoony, and not all blood and guts. They also have Metroid Prime which is incredible, and their broadband adapter got me setup with Phantasy Star online in seconds with ZERO CONFIGURATION.
It asked if I wanted to connect via the broadband adapter, I said yes, and then I was connected. No DHCP, IP numbers, or anything.
Xbox and PS2 seem to be almost mirror images of one another in terms of game selections. Large amounts of common games, and smaller amounts of exclusives. PS2 has the Grand Theft Auto series, which I grew tired of, and Xbox has some of its own exclusives, like Morrowind. Regardless, I think one of the most important features of the xbox will be its increasing use of its harddrive and the Live service to update content. New Levels, new types of characters. Keeps games fresh.
Well this post has gone on far enough. Conclusion: Xbox over PS2 for reasons stated, Gamecube in addition, to suppliment the blood and guts games with a serving of happy little cartoons.
Here's something else for Nintendo to learn! (Score:3, Interesting)
Release dates do play a big part in who buys what system, but Nintendo doesn't sound like it's accounting for why or how their consumers make decisions to pick a console! Honestly if they had released the GameCube closer to the unveiling of the Playstation 2, how many more sales would they have generated? How many additional impulsive buys would that have accounted for? How many people would still buy the Playstation 2 for GTA?
The biggest question on the minds of my friends back in '95 [segaworldweekly.com] was, "Do I buy a Sega Saturn now, wait for Sony's first console system, or preorder an N64?"
My buddies started to fall in to three distinct camps. First there were the impatient gamers that wanted to satisfy a fix right now! Naturally they snatched up the Saturn and voiced no regrets. The next bunch were the tech savvy spec hunting gamers that assumed the market would follow whichever system had the best hardware (please don't remind me of the 3DO). Even after the Playstation [arspentia.org] was released, and it was becoming obvious that Nintendo was going to take a lot longer to ship, there were still countless people that I knew that stuck with the philosophy that if Nintendo was taking it's time to do things right it was probably worth it to wait for their system [narod.ru](even if it meant waiting another year)! Last, but not least, there's the slow-to-let-go, trend-following fan-boys-and-girls that were too leary to fork over hundreds of dollars to a company that was just getting it's feet wet in the game biz. As would be expected the last bunch became product loyalists, either standing devoutely behind Nintendo and their SNES's or advocating the virtues of buying the already-here Sega Saturn system. To be fair, there were those that just wanted to wait to see which developers would sign up with which systems. And others who just wanted to make sure that the system they bought had GOOD games worth playing, developers be damned! That's probably another camp or two entirely, but who's counting?
So you have players operating on indulgence/instant-gratification, product superiority, product loyalty, the number of developers backing the console (which probably has it's roots in the adage, "a 1000 monkeys all banging away at a 1000 keyboards for a 1000 years, and eventually you have to get something good"), and what seems most important, IMHO, GOOD titles worth playing.
It just rather irked me that Iwata sounded so desperately clueless in this interview! Yes, getting it out the door sooner would be great, as long as you don't compromise any of the other things needed to sustain your system! Duh! If they're trying to finger why their sales are low they should look towards their software and hardware. For having spent as long [cnn.com] as they did to release, they only surpass the PS2 [gamersmark.com] by a foot on the yard stick.
Re:Right On! (Score:4, Interesting)
Defining the Target Audiences (Score:2, Interesting)
In a console market where *three* machines are openly competing, and each succeeding enough to sustain its market presence, I personally think that targeting certain audiences with each console would be a good thing.
It's no secret that Nintendo is actively trying to ditch the "kid" label. Signing Capcom to an exclusive deal for certain Resident Evil titles is a clear indicator of this. So what we have is three machines each trying to be The One Console for everyone.
I would prefer a console market where each system has their own target audience. I would like a Nintendo that focuses on perhaps the "kid-friendly" (which aren't by definition "childish", but have both agreeable content and simplistic enough gameplay that kids can enjoy it) market. Perhaps another console focuses on certain genres or another age group, and another focuses on something else.
Gamers that wish to have their fingers in more than one pot are free to buy multiple consoles (as we already do), but those that fit squarely in a single market and only intend to buy one console can have the console that meets their desires.
If only it were that simple... we'll probably continue to see developers push for the ever-present "multiplatform" releases in attempts to bring in the most sales possible. But a sharp definition of target audiences, if it were possible, could be healthy for the industry, as well as lower development costs (if your target audience is all on one console, you need not waste resources on multiplatform releases).
Freedom of choice is good. I just want our choices to be distinct enough from each other.
Re:Great games... if only they were for PS2 (Score:3, Interesting)
Not a flame, just an observation... You remind me of the kid who came by to try to sell us a $2k vacuum, who was fascinated with our $30 Wavebird controllers, but was going to finance a $2k vacuum with his first paycheck.
As another poster has pointed out, you buy the console for the games. The only reason I bought an N64 was for Ocarina of time. Currently, I own 2 of the 3 "new" consoles. I won't buy an XBOX until their controllers make sense and are designed for human hands.... and until there's a game on that console that I *really* want to play.
I'll skip the obvious joke of where to stick another console, and just point out that many fine furniture manufacturers build these interesting things called "Entertainment centers" that have shelves and sometimes doors. The one I have now holds the TV, the SNES, the N64, the PS2 and the GameCube, as well as the audio reciever, the DVD player, and the VCR. It's a matter of finding something designed to do the job at hand, or finding someone who can build a decent piece of furniture that will do the job and fit in the space alotted.
The odds of finding someone to license the console "kernels" and building a system to support the kernels to the standards of the three companies are slim to none, and Slim's on a bus leaving town. The best way to keep control over a platform is to have control over the hardware as well as the software (see Apple, see SUN, see HP). The money's in the software licensing, granted, but being able to have full control over every piece of the puzzle is what makes the consoles as 'powerful' as they are, and the dev kits as easy or hard to code for. That's what made Nintendo and Sony's game division the 800-lb gorillas they are.
Console sizes (Score:2, Interesting)
My point is that unless it uses batteries, design is more important than weight. It is way easier to pop a game in my Xbox than my GameCube. Way OT, but worth mentioning.
Re:Hope it's backward-compatible HA? (Score:4, Interesting)
First off: That's not actually true. The Game Boy Color was backward compatible with the Game Boy, and the Game Boy Advance was backward compatible with the previous two Game Boy platforms.
Secondly, while no *home* console system nintendo has ever released has been backward compatible (unless you count add-ons like the 64DD and the [japan only] Famicom Disk system), Nintendo has also always in the past always been cartridge-based. This is no longer the case; the gamecube is optical disk based. It is not really particularly easy to maintain compatibility from machine to machine when each machine has a different cartridge format that is going to be a different size and shape. Optical disks, however, are a different beast; this thing [overgame.com] alone shows that it is perfectly possible to create one laser that can read both the DVD format and the Gamecube format. If nintendo continues with the optical disks thing, and there is every reason to believe they will, nintendo very well could just allow disks of either sort to fit in their next-gen console.
Now, here's my prediction: Nintendo once released a $50 super nintendo addon that let you play game boy games on it, and now has out a $50 gamecube addon that lets you play GBA games on it. A few years into the Super Nintendo's lifespan, they released a "redesigned" NES, that could play all the NES games but was very small and very cheap, just for everyone who'd never had an NES. From this i'd say Nintendo knows how to milk every last cent out of an expired franchise. My guess would be that if it turns out to be technologically inconvenient to make their next console backward-compatible, Nintendo will just release along with the console a $50 "compatibility card", or something, that will allow people who never had a gamecube to enjoy both systems relatively cheaply, while still making the new system as cheap as possible for those of us with gamecubes.
But what do i know.
---
And anyway, how can you say MS beat out nintendo in the back-compatibility department? MS has only released one console, ever, remember? Wait to make statements like that until the Xbox2 (and maybe, to, be fair, the GC2) is actually *out*.
Re:Obsolete hardware (Score:3, Interesting)
This is true.
Huge amounts of hard drive real estate wasted.
Uh...so?
Two genres! Quake, or Warcraft! Oh yeah, and flight sims.
What, you *nuts*? Sure, those are the most popular genres. Due to the lower barrier to entry, though, you generally see new types of games being tried out on the PC, not on the console. I'd say the reverse -- more interesting things come out on the PC than the console.
Heck, of the games I've played and had a blast with...Close Combat doesn't fit in those genres, Total Annihilation is an RTS, Half Life is Quake, ToME isn't like any of the listed genres...
And consoles are at least as guilty of a limited set of genres. In the very early 80s, everyone played above-view shooters, then platform games. Now those two genres are mostly gone. Console-style RPGs entered. Then, racing games, 3d platformers and 3d street fighting games came along...this makes up the bulk of console games out there.
The three genres (flight sims, FPS, RTS) you just listed are generally very poorly implemented on the console. Turn-based strategy and war sims usually don't exist or are pretty badly done for the console (Turn-based strategy just plain cries out for a mouse, and most console games don't support mice).
Plus, over the course of a year or so, you get to watch your "screamin gaming rig" get slooower and slooooower as PC programmers forget about you.
So don't buy whatever *just* came out. The PC game market just gives you a broader spectrum to choose from. Buy year-old games -- problem solved.
PC games are a ghetto of crappy shareware,
Um...yes, some PC games *are* shareware. Doesn't mean you have to play a single shareware game if you don't want to.
super-violent FPS's
Frankly, I'd call Nintendo's draconian censorship rules a point to criticize Nintendo on, not the PC world.
, and studies in obsessive resource micromanagement (Warcraft)
So don't *play* RTSes. When was the last time you *played* a PC game? '95? There were a bunch of RTSes that came out then, yes. Even RTSes these days are quite different -- take a look at things like Hostile Waters.
PC gamers have to develop "mods" just to keep the games remotely interesting.
Could also (and, IMHO, should) be read "console gamers *cannot* develop mods".
You'll never see creative gaming approaches like Crazy Taxi, Rez, or Frequency on a PC...and quite frankly, it's because PC gamers don't demand anything other than an excuse to drop big money on the latest CPUs and video cards.
Crazy Taxi? An urban racing game with checkpoints? WTF are you talking about? I'm hardly a gaming affecianado, and even I've played Carmageddon years and years ago. Which, incidently, I find rather more fun.
As for Rez or Frequency, I know there *have* been music-based games in the past, but I really wasn't interested -- not a genre that I like -- so I can't give their names off the top of my head.
Sites like Tom's Hardware and Anandtech are group therapy for spendthrifts who attach their masculinity to their Quake framerates.
Again, you don't have to buy the latest and the greatest to play games. Just because there's a new roofing material out doesn't mean I reshingle the house every year. The most demanding game I play is probably Close Combat II...and the library of games that can play on even an old computer is far, far more than I have time to play through.