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).
On the other hand... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not intended as flamebait for the SEGA lovers, since I was a fervent DC evangelist since the day it was released in Japan.
So, a market without Nintendo hardware is possible, just as a market without SEGA hardware is now. We still get their great games, but not on their hardware.
Re:On the other hand... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:On the other hand... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:On the other hand... (Score:3, Insightful)
Nor would Miyamoto ever want to work for another video game company. When Nintendo's done, he will either retire or try to create a new company or development studio.
Re:On the other hand... (Score:4, Insightful)
Nintendo is an excellent company in all respects, but I sadly predict that Sony and Microsoft will be in 2005 what Sega and Nintendo were in 1995.
Re:Difference is branding (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, Sonic was synonymous with Sega. The problem was that Sonic was Sega's only franchise. Let's just look at the NES/Master System and SuperNES/Genesis eras. Nintendo had Mario, Zelda, and Metroid. Sega had Sonic. That's it. Now step forward to the N64/Saturn days. Sega had a multiple-month head start on Nintendo, but Saturn didn't have a Sonic title at launch. Their only franchise, and it wasn't ready until after N64 came out, with a Mario title at launch. That was Sega's Waterloo. They didn't make the same mistake with Dreamcast and Sonic Adventure, but it was too little, too late. The fanboys were gone. Shame. I loved those early Dreamcast commercials. :-)
I have to wonder if GameCube's slow start has the same root cause: No franchise at launch? Luigi's Mansion didn't have the Mario mystique, and Super Smash Bros. Melee, fun as it is, doesn't work because you're just throwing a bunch of franchise characters out of their elements and into a fighter. Unlike Sega, however, Nintendo can get by on reputation. Mario is a given on any Nintendo console. We knew Zelda was coming from the demo reels. Announcing the return of Metroid created plenty of buzz. Maybe things will pick up now that they've arrived (or are on the horizon, in Zelda's case).
Look at it this way: Would XBox 2 stand a chance if Halo 3 was 6 months late? Heck, will the current XBox stand a chance if Halo 2 is 6 months late?
Re:On the other hand... (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Whew (Score:5, Funny)
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:Great games... if only they were for PS2 (Score:5, Insightful)
The only legitimate reason to buy any console is because it has games you want to play, and can't play elsewhere.
I'm going to snag a Gamecube (in addition to my PS2 and XBox) because of Metroid Prime and Eternal Darkness, not because it can process 76.87 jiggawatts per cubic tachyon pulse.
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 $2k vacuum with his first paycheck.
As another poster has pointed out, you buy the console for the games. The only reason I bought an N64 was for Ocarina of time. Currently, I own 2 of the 3 "new" consoles. I won't buy an XBOX until their controllers make sense and are designed for human hands.... and until there's a game on that console that I *really* want to play.
I'll skip the obvious joke of where to stick another console, and just point out that many fine furniture manufacturers build these interesting things called "Entertainment centers" that have shelves and sometimes doors. The one I have now holds the TV, the SNES, the N64, the PS2 and the GameCube, as well as the audio reciever, the DVD player, and the VCR. It's a matter of finding something designed to do the job at hand, or finding someone who can build a decent piece of furniture that will do the job and fit in the space alotted.
The odds of finding someone to license the console "kernels" and building a system to support the kernels to the standards of the three companies are slim to none, and Slim's on a bus leaving town. The best way to keep control over a platform is to have control over the hardware as well as the software (see Apple, see SUN, see HP). The money's in the software licensing, granted, but being able to have full control over every piece of the puzzle is what makes the consoles as 'powerful' as they are, and the dev kits as easy or hard to code for. That's what made Nintendo and Sony's game division the 800-lb gorillas they are.
You obviously don't care about gaming. (Score:3, Insightful)
In the gaming world's case, that downfall was how Nintendo raped the market between 1985 and 1989. With carte blanche to force developers into any deals they wanted to, they ruined gaming. Remember Ultra Games? That was a "4th party" Konami used because Nintendo only let 3rd party developers release 2 titles per year. How about the price of the NES set: 200$ USD for 4 straight years. Sound monopolistic? It was.
Competition is good. It means that you have Sony and Microsoft and Nintendo being attentive to the needs of the developers and the needs of the game players. It means that you get more choice, because there is a refinement of target audiences.
I have connected to my entertainment centre right now: NES, TG16, SNES, N64, GC, DC, Xbox, PS2. My Sega Master System isn't connected because I can't find the AC adaptor. Why do I have them setup? Because I care about my gaming. Plus, for less than the cost of keeping one computer up to spec for Doom 3, I can have every console available + the hot games! This means I get my cool Wild Arms 3 and Suikoden 3 on my PS2, I get Metroid and Resident Evil and Sonic on my GameCube, and I get Panzer Dragoon and JSRF and DOA: XV on my Xbox.
If you don't have the money to buy a different console, don't post a whine about it on slashdot. Consoles come out every 5 years or so, and generally have a library of 10 to 15 games which kick ass (the Dreamcast was an exception, with over 20 excellent games). It's as real as the 18 month video card upgrade cycle in PC land.
Re:Great games... if only they were for PS2 (Score:4, Insightful)
I must say that I'm quite pleased with my purchase of my Gamecube. There has been quite a number of really good games released for it, and I've only had one disappointment (which would be the Turok game, but it wouldn't be so bad if its loading time didn't take freaking forever.)
PS To all those
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.
This should be awesome (Score:5, Funny)
Dumpster wars (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Dumpster wars (Score:2)
Good for them! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Good for them! (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Right On! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Good for them! (Score:3, Informative)
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?
Re:Good for them! (Score:3, Insightful)
Obsolete hardware (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Obsolete hardware (Score:5, Funny)
I wouldn't know... I have a Dreamcast. I won't have to worry about Sega releasing new hardware anytime soon.
But, I'd love to have a broadband adapter for it on the cheap.
Re:Obsolete hardware (Score:4, Insightful)
It confirmed that I was right not to buy a GameCube.
This replacement^H^H^H err... upgrade cycle is the reason I have totally lost interest in console gaming.
If you are intelligent enough to use a computer, use it as your gaming platform too. After all, it is better with regards to price/performance and very hack friendly. In fact, you can even make it do productive things
But here is what really ticks me off. The NES had a very long (store) shelf life. In that time, developers really learned the boundaries of that machine and developed the art of programming on it. Now I recognize that what happened nearly 20 years ago does not fully apply today, and the example of the NES may not be the case in general, but I dont see how this really helps the quality of games to force a new platform every couple of years;
get a few title which are Nintendo/Sony/MS only,
recycle some old video game lines (Metroid, Mario, Zelda),
poorly adapt some PC titles
- and then 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. The home console market imploded several times. This may do it once more.
I understand that new tech begs to be used in gaming - I just think its best used through a graphics card with a TV-out. Longer S-Video cables, anyone?
Re:Obsolete hardware (Score:2)
I can somewhat understand what you're saying, but considering your examples have all been enormous breakthrough games (that sequels basically only have one thing in common with it's previous versions, the hero) it really can't be considered mearly recycling. It's basically on par with calling Final Fantasy VII a recycled version of FF III.
Re:Obsolete hardware (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh, dude, console lifecycles have always been 4 to 5 YEARS. That's a lot of time to play with them.
Re:Obsolete hardware (Score:5, Insightful)
Your kidding right?
I have a total investment in my PS2 and games of around $1200. I have an investment in my computer of around $4000. How is that better price to performance? There are a lot of better games available for my PS2 than there are for my computer. They also work right out of the box. I don't have to mess with Windows. I dont' have to hunt down new drivers. I don't have to install the latest patches. I just pop in the cd/dvd, fire up the console, and play the damn game. That is how gaming should be. I also get to play from the comfort of my couch.
Also, how often do you upgrade your computer? Do you still have the same computer you had 5 years ago and does it play the latest games? Probably not. Just like I upgrade my computer system every couple of years, I don't want to be using the same gaming hardware for the next 20 years. The NES was great but it had it's day. The same with all of the other consoles that came and went. I still have a ton of PS1 games that I play but I don't play them as much as the newer PS2 games because most of the PS2 games are better. They have better graphics, better sound, etc. The technology has advanced and to utilize the newer technology, you need newer hardware.
It's much more expensive to upgrade a computer than it is to buy a new console. How much is a "nice" graphics card these days? You can spend more on just a graphics card than on a console and still have a lot of other parts to buy, and the first computer you purchase will cost much more because you have nothing to start with and to compare price to performance, you need a decent gaming computer, not the Wally-World special.
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: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.
Re:Obsolete hardware (Score:4, Insightful)
That's odd. Because all of those games you bought for your old console still work. There is nothing, save physical damage to the media or the console (or if you've lost bits and pieces) that will keep you from being able to enjoy any of the games you have.
Contrast that with the PC gaming environment where you are constantly having to upgrade your existing computer to play the latest and greatest games only to find that last year's "must have" game no longer works!
All of my old PSX games still work. Every one (except the one that I rolled my chair over, but that's MY fault). All of my Dreamcast games still work. Contrast that with games for my PC. Unreal no longer works in my system. Dues Ex only runs in software mode. Sin (HAHAHA!) doesn't work anymore at all! I have a pile of games that I can no longer play on my PC because either my system is too fast, has too much RAM (WTF?), is using the wrong version of Windows, has too new a version of DirectX, no longer has a SoundBastard 16 sound card, no longer has a Voodoo1 card, no longer has a Voodoo2 card, etc... ad nausium.
Sure, the upgrade cycle with consoles is a bitch, but it's NOTHING like the nightmare that is the upgrade cycle with PCs where a simple video driver upgrade can kill a game! Sure, new consoles come out and new games for the old systems dry up. But at least the old games keep working!
Just Say No (Score:2)
Spend a few bucks on hardworking open-source projects, and screw the conglomerates. Buy a bike, go out on a date, exercise!
Microsoft: Linux is best after all [xnewswire.com]
Re:Obsolete hardware (Score:4, Funny)
I just bought an Atari 2600. Now they come out with this Sega Saturn console. The bastards!
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.
bigger than life.. (Score:2, Insightful)
nintendo is a juggernaut. they have a lock on some of the most lucrative franchises in the gaming industry (zelda, pokmon, metroid, etc), so why would anyone scoff and say they would not develop another console to compete? playstation fanboi trolls?
Pretty gutzy move. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Pretty gutzy move. (Score:4, Interesting)
The same goes for Nintendo vs. PS2 (Score:5, Insightful)
One other thing: has anyone noticed how quickly Nintendo's Gamecube games start? (Here, I mean specifically the ones made by Nintendo.) I can usually have the power on and be playing in the amount of time it would take to get past the first developer's logo on a PS2 game.
Anyway, all that to say this. I look forward to a new console by Nintendo, but whether they made a new console or not, I look forward mostly, to their games.
Why? (Score:2)
You want games for older kids/adults, buy a PS2 or an XBox. You want games for kids, buy a GameCube. (That is in NO WAY a slap at Nintendo or the GC.)
Re:Pretty gutzy move. (Score:4, Informative)
Out with a bang? (Score:2)
And when that day comes, will they flush everyones favorite plumber down the toilet?
2005/2006 is going to be interesting (Score:2)
With the next generation, I think the battle will be much closer, and fought much more on who can get the most really kick-ass games out the quickest.
I think Sony will still have a fair advantage from having done so well in this generation, and as usual Microsoft will be at a disadvantage in Japan, but it's definitely going to be close...
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
Comment is based on GBA sales records. (Score:4, Insightful)
Gamecube support, GBA connections, more questions (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Gamecube support, GBA connections, more questio (Score:2)
Re:Gamecube support, GBA connections, more questio (Score:2)
That is correct from a hardware engineer's viewpoint. But a software engineer would definitely not use the word "nifty" to describe the PS2.
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! :)
Catch-22. (Score:2)
Ask any PS2 developer and he(/she?) will tell you that it is murder trying to develop for it. It has something like 5 different processors. There is a PS1 sitting within the PS2 and is connected by a bus. Some functionality sits within the PS1, such as the gamepads.
The PS2 has a huge learning curve. And you have to write your own rendering engine plus it is poorly documented and poorly translated from the Japanese. Just compare PS2 launch titles with recent offerings. It took developers a good 2 years to learn how to get the best out of the machine.
With the Gamecube, they did not have to worry about backwards compatibility. And there is an opengl-like api as well.
Nintendo's market (Score:2)
That is why I WOULDN'T want to buy a Nintendo. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nintendo's market (Score:2, Insightful)
Go to the store and look at the case of Game Cube games. Yes, you'll see little kid games like Mario Sunshine and Kirby Eats More Stuff (or something like that). But you'll also notice a selection of more "mature" games such as Resident Evil Zero, Mortal Kombat, and Ass Raping Pedophile Warriors (or something like that).
If you chose to buy another console then that's fine. Buy what you want, play it, be happy. But don't make up crap about its competitors in an attempt to further justify your purchase when no justification is necessary.
Re:Nintendo's market (Score:3, Insightful)
the significance of being a first mover.... (Score:5, Insightful)
during the genesis/snes wars, the first mover advantage most defn. helped sega when the technologically super snes arrived. the installed base invalidated the technical differences to a degree, and sega did pretty well for themselves.
during the saturn/ps1 wars, sega again had first mover advantage. but they negated that advantage by 1) coming out at too high a price point (i think $300) and 2) missing the boat w.r.t 3D gaming - the saturn just couldn't handle it.
during the latest dreamcast/ps2 wars, sega again had first mover advantage, and the DC did do well initially. i think what screwed it was that ps2 was LIGHT YEARS ahead of DC tech-wise - the first-mover advantage was simply negated this time (as opposed to the smaller difference of degree between the genesis and snes).
nintendo, which has traditionally always had late console releases, now realizes that first mover is vitally important. hence the latest announcement. the GC just came too late - the PS2 is a powerful box with TOO MUCH of a installed base. lets hope that their latest technology is on par with ps3 and xbox2 so they can remain competitive for the long haul.
Re:the significance of being a first mover.... (Score:2)
I know a lot of people waited until all the systems were out (or at least until the PS2 was released) before purchasing a new one, since you want to see what the other companies bring to the table. I think that's what hurt the Dreamcast. On the other hand, people aren't going to wait 2 years to see what else is out there which was the case between Dreamcast and GameCube/XBox.
Re:the significance of being a first mover.... (Score:5, Informative)
Sega's biggest advantage was having a faster CPU than the SNES, which helped a lot for sports titles (which required lots of sprites, but not necessarily lots of color or excellent sound). Still, the two systems were similar enough that both consoles shared the US market pretty much equally.
$400, actually, compared to the PSX's $300 (which came out a few months later). The Saturn was a monster at handling 2D graphics, and did quite well in Japan, but developing 3D graphics was harder. And, since developing was easier for the PSX in general, that's where all the big popular US titles went.
"LIGHT YEARS" is an exaggeration. The DC isn't as powerful as the PS2 (by virtue of coming out much sooner), but the level of power is certainly comparable; one should be able to port a title to either without great loss (and the DC is much easier to develop for, also). The problem is, when Sega's multi-millionaire financier died, the company folded its console business rather than trying to really compete. Whether the DC could've made a go of things is debatable, since support dried up soon after Sega discontinued the hardware.
In general, the most "powerful" console is rarely the most popular one (the X-Box is likely to continue that trend). But coming very late to market with only marginally better hardware hasn't helped Nintendo's market share over the years. Still, unlike Sega and Microsoft who sold consoles as a loss, Nintendo profits on each one sold and should have little trouble staying in the business for as long as they want to.
Re:the significance of being a first mover.... (Score:3, Insightful)
DVD really helped Sony past the chicken and the egg problem many consoles faced, add to that the fact that it could play the vast library of PS1 games and Sony trampled all over Sega.
The Outside Scoop (Score:3, Interesting)
Just my take from the outside.
Re:the significance of being a first mover.... (Score:2, Insightful)
If I remember right, Sega moved up the release date of the Saturn to May 95 from September 95. They announced this at the Spring CES show to try to give themselves a boost/hype machine and blindside Sony. Problem was that all the 1st/2nd party Saturn games were rushed out and none of the third party support had finished games at the early May launch. I remember the Saturn being $399 or $449 at launch, sitting next to 3 or 4 games during the first few months. The PS1 was $299 at launch on 9/9/95 and had Ridge Raaaacer, Toshinden and about 10 other games at launch, and about 50 to 75 by Christmas.
There's definately a sweet-spot for launch time. If you launch too early (Ask Trip Hawkins and 3DO) your price point is too high and your technology looks dated by the time the next system launches. If you wait too long you're behind in user base and no one wants to develop games for your tiny user base.
Anymore, I think these are the keys to success:
Re:the significance of being a first mover.... (Score:4, Informative)
Hell no! The PS2 was NOT light years ahead of the Dreamcast. The problem with the Dreamcast were its controllers and the lack of software for it. What helped kill sales for Sega was the PROMISE by Sony that the PS2 would be light-years ahead of the Dreamcast. So people hung onto their PS1s and waited before shelling out any cash for the Dreamcast since the PS2 was right around the corner. When the PS2 came out, it was marginally better than the Dreamcast, but by then it was too late.
Somewhat unrelated, but I am curoius (Score:5, Funny)
Is it possible they are just a division of a parent company now, being used to get the Famous name on some games once again? And we will never see more than such? Or are they an independant company, that may once again become a player in the console gameing industry?
To me the current stats us Console games is going the way of the buffalo. The freedom and variety of console gameing is being cut down by all these M$ purchases. I had a buddy of mine say, "Well, that is going to suck, who the hell wants to play the same damn game with a different name?" Is this going to cut down on the variety of new games? The Quality? The number? Price? How about the other console platforms? I am curious what other slashdotters think.
Ohh ya, I am happy with my original NES. You should see the thing hooked up to my 52" big screen and suround sound.
- Ice_Hole
OT: Atari (Score:5, Informative)
From the infogrames corporate faq:
Re:Somewhat unrelated, but I am curoius (Score:2)
Atari [atari.com] is owned by Infogrames [infogrames.com] of France.
I'm not positive, but I think that is effectively a completely different company, all of the management has been changed.
Below is a summary of some information from the Infogrames corporate site, listed above.
Infogrames Entertainment Acquisition History
Year: Company Acquired, Region (Activity)
* 1996: Ocean Software, United Kingdom (Publishing)
* 1997: Philips Media, Netherlands (Distribution)
* 1998: ABS Multimedia, Portugal (Distribution)
* 1998: Arcadia, Spain (Distribution)
* 1998: Gremlin, United Kingdom (Development and Publishing)
* 1998: Game City, Switzerland (Distribution)
* 1998: Psygnosis, France (Development)
* 1999: Accolade, United States (Development and Publishing)
* 1999: Beam Software, Autsralia (Development)
* 1999: Ozisoft, Australia (Distribution)
* 1999: GT Interactive, United States (Development/Publishing/Distribution)
* 1999: Den-O-Tech, Canada (Development)
* 2000: Hasbro Interactive, United States (Publishing)
* 2000: Paradigm Entertainment, United States (Development)
* 2002: Shiny Entertainment, United States (Development)
* 2002: Eden Studios, France (Development)
Uh, it's not a prequel... (Score:3, Informative)
Better be spectacular (Score:2)
Consumer Loyalty (Score:5, Insightful)
Although, I would like to hear that Nintendo is doing something revolutionary, instead of the same tired cartridge-based technology improvements.
Less about loyalty (Score:2)
Nintendos advantage is their games are great for kids. I mean little kids like my daughter. The console is just kid friendly where the PS2 and XBox are less so. Almost every game on the XBox is for 18+ adults. PS2 is almost the same but with selection of kids games that just aren't as great as Nintendos.
As long as Nintendo keeps it's target audience at the 16 and under crowd they will do fine. MS and Sony will compete for the older crowd until one of them gives up.
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.
Megaton? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Megaton? (Score:2)
Re:Megaton? (Score:2)
As for all that stuff about the Megaton announcement being "the thing that will deliver a deathblow to one of nintendo's major competitors" and "the thing that will make gamecubes just fly off the shelves", that was probably just the rumor sites blowing wishful thinking out of proportion.
That said, the Game Boy Advance SP is nothing to sneeze at, and nintendo probably considers the Game Boy a bigger thing than the Game Cube anyway, rightfully so at least considering their sales for the GBA are about an order of magnitude higher [canoe.ca]. I just wish they'd announced something (*cough* Pokemon Online? *cough*) to placate those of us who have gamecubes
!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.
Really? (Score:2)
Yup. When they stop selling consoles, they're done. It's not like they've ever made a game for another console...
The arcade is the only market I can think of that they might have a foothold in, but they aren't very prominent there. I think it's safe to assume that when they leave the console industry they leave the whole video game industry. That's not that big a statement.
gameboy *? (Score:2)
the portable market won't be drying up for nintendo any time soon.
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.
Only trolls "slam" it as a kid system... (Score:5, Insightful)
Trend here (Score:5, Funny)
"Read my lips, no new taxes" - George Bush
"Let them eat cake" - Marie Antionette
"No one will ever need more than 16KB of RAM" - Bill Gates
Taking bets... (Score:2)
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.
Bah to game consoles. (Score:2)
Name just one console where the player can be eaten by a grue?
[/curmudgeon]
Retro Studies (Score:2, Funny)
That's such a fitting name for a studio working on a Nintendo game... but actually it's Retro Studios. =)
New games announced as well! (Score:3, Funny)
Well, not really, but we can already guess at what their first patch of games will be:
Come on Nintendo, surprise me and make the flagship games of your next console ORIGINAL and nnot aimed at 8 year olds... GC has excellent games while still a kiddy image... Shame.
If they do two things... (Score:5, Insightful)
First, Nintendo needs to learn a lesson from its portable market. Biggest reason why I'll get a GBA SP? OR why everyone got GBAs to begin with? *Backwards compatibility*
Sony has it with PS2. It made getting a PS2 much more lucrative than a GC, since I could finally play the FF games, as well as GTA series.
Nintendo should maintain bacwards compat. for Gamecube games, and move up to full sized discs like the PS2 for better soundtracks and even more graphics goodies. I'm not a tech genius but I imagine the system can differentiate between big and small legacy discs...if my $5 cdrom drive can read those funny shaped business card discs, Nintendo should be able to accomplish this.
So...bigger discs for more goodies, and backwards compatibility with Gamecube. Go Nintendo.
Oh, more adult targetted games wouldnt hurt. And maybe online play...but my first two points are the biggies.
Personally, I am going to wait... (Score:5, Funny)
Grain of salt (Score:4, Insightful)
No, what is more likely is that Nintendo is countering Sony's mindshare ploy with a mindshare ploy of their own. This is the first real year for the Game Cube, and by my calculations that means that unless they fail miserably in the market, Nintendo won't release a new system until 2008. Nintendo knows this business, and they know that to be successful you have to make the majority of people wait just a little bit for a new system. The launch of a new system is a huge financial burden... why would they go running in to do that when they are so profitable at number 2?
GameCube: Not just for kids... (Score:5, Insightful)
The complaints obviously don't come from anyone who has actually played a GameCube game for an extended period of time. Nintendo has done an excellent job appealing to both young kids and older GAMERS, IMO.
All of Nintendo's "big" GameCube games are extremely fun to play. Cartoonish characters
appeal to younger players, but it is the solid, fun games that have kept Nintendo fans loyal since the 80s.
Take SSB: Melee, for example. It is filled with characters kids will like based on appearance. Mario, Luigi, Pikachu, Yoshi, etc. It is also extremely fun, but has tons of retro Nintendo goodness that only an older gamer will appreciate (I doubt an 8-Year old understands who the "Ice Climbers" are).
Animal Crossing is yet another game that looks like it is "for kids" at first glance, but delivers some interesting, innovative gaming as well as the ability to play old NES games... a feature that was obviously designed for older fans.
And then, there is Metroid Prime, which is probably the best console game released within the last two years.
Most of the GC games can be enjoyed by anyone. As more people who grew up with the original NES start to have children, Nintendo might actually be able to reclaim the top spot. Why? Because parents will be able to purchase their family a console that they can enjoy for the retro-ness, and their kids can also enjoy.
Honestly, my PS2 got more use in 2002 as a DVD player and a PS1. I haven't been impressed with too many games that have come out in 2002 for it. On the other hand, the my Cube has been getting a lot of play time, and will continue to do so since Link and I will have some serious princess rescuing to do come Spring.
What Nintendo HAS NOT done well is appealed to casual idiot who thinks that having sex with a hooker and then running her over to get your money back is the epitomy of good, "mature," gameplay. This is a good thing.
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.
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.
backwards compatiblilty? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How about Sega???? (Score:2, Informative)
"Indeed, Sega has fallen, they are down, posting quarterly losses in the hundreds of thousands of dollars for the fourth time in a row, but they are not out. In fact, Sega's future appears to be a bright one as the company is now officially third party. From now on, Sega will only be making games for other companies' systems."
Read the entire article here [wpi.edu].
That was a hoax (Score:2)
I thought Sony wasn't goiing to use the Playstation name anymore?
Nintendo never claimed any right to the PlayStation trademark. You're remembering this hoax [slashdot.org].
Actually, in some ways, it's worse... (Score:5, Insightful)
Title exclusivity sucks ass. I hate that each of these consoles has at least one extremely compelling title that is available only on that console.
It means having to have multiple consoles in order to play the games that you want to play... My house now has all three current generation consoles (Got my son a PS2 Christmas of last year, picked up an Xbox for myself last summer, and ended up getting a Gamecube this year at the after Christmas sales).
At least I'm covered when a new game comes out, but even then I'm faced with difficult decisions. When we want a game that's available for more than one platform, we have to decide which version to get, resigned to the knowledge that we're gonna be committed to playing said game at one of three locations (The Home Theater, the kids' playroom, or my son's bedroom).
It makes PC gaming look so much more attractive than consoles, knowing that I had software portability; that one title could be played on any of the PCs.
I also have to concede that First person shooters suck on consoles. I long for the Keyboard and Mouse combo whenever I play Halo. I'll never be half as good at it as I am at Quake.
I also have to take issue with your assertion about Better Prices. It may be valid for the hardware (PS2 and Xbox for $200, Gamecube for $150), but it's completely invalid for the game titles themselves. A new game costs $50 (at a retail store), regardless of the console you're buying it for. I have seen no indication that games for Platform X are any less expensive than they are for Platforms Y or Z.
I wish there was a single platform specification, with multiple hardware vendors building compatible systems, all capable of running the same software. Then you'd have real choices.
(Oh yeah, I guess there is... They call them PCs)
Re:Actually, in some ways, it's worse... (Score:5, Insightful)
I wish there was a single platform specification, with multiple hardware vendors building compatible systems, all capable of running the same software. Then you'd have real choices.
They tried that. It was called the 3DO, and it failed miserably. There were even plans in the works for a 3DO add-in card for PCs. What it basically ammounts to is that exclusivity is what drives up profits. The big three make most of their profits from game liscensing on their console. I'm not going to get into the profit or no-profit on hardware debate because that is one topic that is so rife with misinformation that such arguments usually go nowhere. The simple truth is that the real profit lies in liscensing fees accrued from developers developing on a particular console.
Which console a particular game is developed for or if a game is developed for all consoles depends on a number of factors, but all the hardware vendors try to get exclusive rights to that really big, hit game. In turn, gamers will buy a console based on that really big hit game. Exclusive use of that one game title, will generate a whole slew of profits from the liscensing fees paid from other games on that console. Not to mention profits from the various peripherals that gamers must purchase. Microsoft understood that when they bought Bungie and therefore Halo. Sony understood that when they enticed Rockstar into developing the Grand Theft Auto series exclusively for their systems. Nintendo simply has a wide range of exclusive character brands that keep loyal gamers coming back. The exclusive games on closed consoles economy simply works, and that's all there is to it. Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft aren't necessarily making the big bucks from the games developed in house, at least not in comparison to the profits had from the whole of games developed for their consoles. Instead, they make the money off the wide range of games that were liscensed for release on a particular console, that were purchased after that gamer bought his XBox just to play Halo.
We'll never see an open console standard, and if we do I would be willing to bet that the big three would still find ways to add exclusive features to their consoles that will only work with exclusive games. Much like the SQL standard and the many extensions written by Oracle, Microsoft and the like. The goal is to snag customers and make them loyal. You've got to milk them for all that they've got.
Re:Actually, in some ways, it's worse... (Score:3)
First of all Software Portability means it's OS and hardware independent. Secondly, games are released exclusively for Windows, and later on if their good enough they'll be ported to Mac. Since Microsoft owns 95% of the market, there are no "exclusives" because pratically there is only ONE PLATFORM.
Now I fail to understand why you are bickering about exclusives -- the console market doesn't have a monopoly and you have a CHOICE between 3 systems. I like to have choice -- this is the reason why I don't want the fucking M$ bastard to enter another market and fuck it up.
Yes, this means we won't get all the exclusives, but that's life as each company needs something to draw an audience and make money. Besides, what's really important is that each console is putting out quality titles. And there is nothing wrong with being different. As long as good games are coming out for PS2, I'm happy -- I don't need every fucking hyped-up exclusive. And it's nice to know GC has good games, and that Xbox just started to ramp up on awesome games.
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*.