Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
GameCube (Games) Businesses

Nintendo Revolution May Alienate Third Party Developers 118

Posted by Zonk from the that's-some-chutzpah-right-there dept.
IGN has an article discussing an interview in which Nintendo President Satoru Iwata talked about the possibility that the Nintendo Revolution's fundamental difference from other offerings may alienate third party developers. From the article: "If the next generation platforms are going to create even more gorgeous looking games using further enhanced functionality, and if that next-gen market can still expand the games industry, then I'm afraid that third-parties may not support Nintendo" Refreshing to hear such an honest assessment from company president.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Nintendo Revolution May Alienate Third Party Developers More

Nintendo Revolution May Alienate Third Party Developers

Comments Filter:
  • It'd better be amazing, like VR LOTR mmorpg amazing.

    • Re:If it's that different.. (Score:5, Funny)

      by KevinKnSC ( 744603 ) on Friday March 04, 2005 @06:00PM (#11848988)
      It's Nintendo. The exact amount of amazing required for them to have a successful console is:
      1. Mario Revolution
      2. Zelda Revolution
      3. Pokemon Revolution

      • Re:If it's that different.. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 04, 2005 @06:07PM (#11849053)
        And yet for all you may diss their games, Nintendo are the only company that ever remotely innovates with hardware. MS and Sony, and Atari and Sega in their day, all just churn out identikit consoles and handhelds. Nintendo invents. They try dual screens, they try tilt controllers, they try VR headsets, they try linking portables to consoles, they try bongos. Sometimes it works, sometimes it's a disaster, but it's always innovative.

        Seriously, the only games I've ever seen on non-Nintendo consoles that were remotely innovative were Katamari Damacy and Ico. That's a grand total of 2. You say Nintendo is all about Mario, Zelda, and Pokemon? I point out that every Mario and Zelda introduces new ideas (unlike every new Halo, which introduces more guns and less plot), and raise you Animal Crossing and Pikmin.
        • To be fair, the VirtuaBoy was never a VR headset, more of a VR table decoration you can look into.

          Also, you forgot the Power Glove and the action/jumping pad from the late 1980s.

          Sega had some interesting stuff. I do believe they beat Sony with the Sega CD. The Sega Channel was interesting, as was the 32x.
        • And yet for all you may diss their games, Nintendo are the only company that ever remotely innovates with hardware.

          Nope. The bongos you cite as a Nintendo innovation are obviously inspired by Konami's various musical instrument controllers and their associated Bemani games, Dance Dance Revolution being the best known.

          Sony's EyeToy was also very clearly innovative. Essentially every game Nintendo had made that required a specific controller has failed, from the R.O.B. to the Super Scope - they gave up
          • But did Konami ever make a platform game using bongo control? They're at least innovating with how you can control the games. And Odama looks to be a treat... pinball action with bongos! EyeToy was certainly innovative, but connecting "innovation" and "success" probably isn't the best idea.
          • Sony's EyeToy was also very clearly innovative.

            I recall playing invisible basketball with my friend on a webcam. There were plenty of other games. This was done years ago.

          • Yeah, it's a shame that Duck Hunt flopped.

            BTW, you're forgetting that Nintendo had the floormat controler idea long before DDR was even a thought.

        • The Dreamcast was VERY innovative... (Score:5, Informative)

          by Man In Black ( 11263 ) <<ze-ro> <at> <shaw.ca>> on Friday March 04, 2005 @09:34PM (#11850237) Homepage
          MS and Sony, and Atari and Sega in their day, all just churn out identikit consoles and handhelds.

          Well, I can't vouch for Sony and Atari, but I won't stand idly by while someone claims that Sega doesn't innovate... This is the same company that released Typing of the Dead, Samba de Amigo, and Seaman for crying out loud. That takes some balls right there. Plus, I'd argue that the Dreamcast was easily one of the more innovative consoles in history. Lets take a look...
          • The Dreamcast was the first console to come with a modem, and pretty much opened the door to online gaming for the unwashed masses. Phantasy Star Online being one of the more popular MMORPGs at the time, and the first to appear on a console.
          • It was also the first system to feature analog triggers on the controller, which seem to be the norm these days. (Actually, this honor should probably be given to the 3D controllers that Sega released for the Saturn... but these were after-market controllers released near the end of the Saturn's life. Plus, the Dreamcast controllers are quite obviously based on their design).
          • They released a microphone that could be used to talk to other people online in Alien Front Online (Take that SOCOM and XBox Live).
          • The Dreamcast can link with the NeoGeo Pocket on a number of games, which could easily be considered inspiration for Nintendo's GC-GBA linking features.
          • The Dreamcast was also the first system (and might still be the ONLY system, I'm not sure) that actually generates a VGA picture internally, thus allowing for easy hookup to a VGA monitor without using an expensive upscan converter.
          • The idea of the VMU was an incredibly unique idea, allowing you to take a little bit of the game with you in the form of minigames, not to mention letting you trade saves away from the console.
          • They also offered a mouse, keyboard, driving wheels, light guns, twin sticks (japan only), and even maracas as controllers.


          If you don't consider all THAT to be innovative, then I really think you'll be disappointed with whatever Nintendo has up their sleeve...
          • True. I hope that the Revolution is just as innovative. Look at all the things that evolved from the Dreamcast. Even though it died many of the concepts it tested have dramatically improved the console gaming world of today. Even if the Revolution fails to profit, doesn't mean it wont innovate.
          • The Dreamcast was the first console to come with a modem, and pretty much opened the door to online gaming for the unwashed masses.

            I believe some version of street fighter or some fighting game for the SNES or Genesis(I'm not sure) had a modem built into the cartridge.
            • You're thinking of a device called X-Play, IIRC. It was a 2400 baud modem (seriously!) that went into the cartridge slot first, then had the game cartridge piggy-backed in, similar to a game genie or the old Sonic and Knuckles cart.

              Theoretically, the X-Play could support any game, but I believe it only supported some of the Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat games, and a small smattering of EA Sports titles. The modem itself was quite expensive ($100 for a 2400 when 28.8k was pretty much the standard), and
              • The product you are thinking of is "X-Band" [edgeemu.com] released by Catapult/THQ circa 1994. It plugged into the SNES or Genesis cartridge slot, and you plugged your game into THAT on top.

                I played NHL on it way back in the day. Ir was pretty good, but most people would pull the plug rather than lose the game.

                What X-Band did was emulate one control input on each player's system. So I'd be player two on both systems, and you'd be player one (for instance).

          • It takes balls to make not one, but two games about bass fishing - and to provide special controllers for it.
          • With a maximum party size of 4, it's no MMORPG. Yes, it's an MORPG, but that's not the same thing.

            The Xbox does VGA internally, except it's passed through a TV output circuit (which does support progressive scan video VGA mode: 480p = 640x480).

            Otherwise, though, the Dreamcast was pretty innovative, which is why it's still my favourite console (and I own as much Dreamcast stuff as I can get :)).
          • You forgot the almighty FISHING ROD CONTROLLER! That was seriously one of the coolest accessories for the Dreamcast and I hate fishing (both in games and real life).
        • What's so innovative about ICO? The way it makes you put up with 45 minutes of cinematics before you even start playing? Most games already have too many splash screens and whatnot, but this just beats a dead horse.
        • Seriously, the only games I've ever seen on non-Nintendo consoles that were remotely innovative were Katamari Damacy and Ico.

          Those are the same ones I would have mentioned, heh. Though really Sony can only clame credit for Ico -- Katamari Damacy was produced by Namco.

          If you're going to include all games release for that company's system, then the Grand Theft Auto games, while different iterations of the same basic idea, do at least present something new compared to most of the rest of the industry.

        • VR Headsets. (Score:2, Interesting)

          by torpor ( 458 )
          i totally agree with you on nintendos' innovating, and i will even go so far as to Thank them for the vomit-inducing VirtualBoy.

          wouldn't it be grand if they made a VirtualBoy2 that wasn't vomit-inducing, and in fact had two screens capable of decent 3D graphics.

          DS "Eye-o-scope" Adapter, anyone?

        • Uhhh, Atari invented the concept of a console gaming system with 3rd party developed games sold on ROM cartridges... something Nintendo later copied. Your post is nothing more than pure Nintendo fanboyism.
        • And yet for all you may diss their games

          Did I forget to flash my Nintendo Fan Club (remember that? way back in the Zelda 2 days?) card, or what? I wasn't saying the games were bad. On the contrary, I was saying that Nintendo has franchises that are so well liked that it's hard for them to go wrong. There are a lot of people out there who will buy a Nintendo console for one of the franchise games, and then go on to explore stuff like Animal Crossing or Pikmin. That's the point I was making.

      • Re:If it's that different.. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 04, 2005 @06:12PM (#11849092)
        It's Nintendo. The exact amount of amazing required for them to have a successful console is:
        1. Mario Revolution
        2. Zelda Revolution
        3. Pokemon Revolution

        And all Sony need for success is Final Fantasy MCMLXVIII. And all Microsoft need for success is Halo 5: "The Second Half of the Ending Credits".

        The fundamental difference is that every new Mario or Zelda takes the familiar characters and builds a completely new gameplay experience around them. In contrast, every new Final Fantasy takes exactly the same gameplay and plot outline and slots in new names for the villains, and every new FPS is just like all the ones before it but with slightly more realistic physics and slightly different shaped guns.

        Hell, I've never even bought a Nintendo console, and they can still get me raving like a fanboy. That's what I call impressive.

      • Re:If it's that different.. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Man In Black ( 11263 ) <<ze-ro> <at> <shaw.ca>> on Friday March 04, 2005 @09:48PM (#11850300) Homepage
        It's Nintendo. The exact amount of amazing required for them to have a successful console is:
        1. Mario Revolution
        2. Zelda Revolution
        3. Pokemon Revolution

        Actually, I'd attribute their more recent disappointments in the console business to a failure to produce on your third point. What Pokemon games were released for the N64? Pokemon Snap (A game where you take pictures of Pokemon), Hey You Pikachu (A game where you talk to Pikachu), Pokemon Stadium 1 & 2 (Which let you battle Pokemon in 3D, primarily meant to enhance the Gameboy games), and Pokemon Puzzle League (A decent puzzle game with a Pokemon theme). Why did they not release an elaborate 3D RPG similar to the Gameboy games, except with killer graphics? A game like that could have easily made millions for Nintendo, and possibly saved the N64 from it's destiny!

        Now, what Pokemon games have they released for the Gamecube? Pokemon Channel (A game where you arrange programming for a Pokemon-themed TV station), Pokemon Box (An accessory that basically only exists to transfer Pokemon between the GBA games and a GC memory card), and Pokemon Colloseum (Basically an updated version of Pokemon Stadium). Again, where's the 3D Pokemon RPG that kids would obviously be interested in?

        I'm not even a fan of Pokemon myself, but I am a fan of Nintendo and it seems like such a glaring omission in Nintendo's plans that it kind of grates on my nerves. Why waste their time on dreck like Pokemon Channel when they could be working on the game that might actually SAVE the Gamecube (or at least pull it out of the sewer for a short while)? Then again, the Pokemon fad has died down a lot since the N64 was around, so it might be a moot point by now....
        • As you said, the Pokemon thing isn't quite as fierce as it was 5 years ago... but they are in fact working on a fully 3D Pokemon RPG for the gamecube. http://cube.ign.com/objects/716/716652.html?ui=gam efinder
        • "and Pokemon Colloseum (Basically an updated version of Pokemon Stadium). Again, where's the 3D Pokemon RPG that kids would obviously be interested in?"

          Uh, how about the 3D Pokemon RPG included in Pokemon Coliseum where you have to snatch shadow Pokemon and unlock their hearts? It's not super long, and it's not super polished, but it is 3D, Pokemon, and an RPG...

          Pokemon Box was not released in North America because it was also built into the Pokemon Coliseum release.
        • That's a good point, and I guess I overlooked it because I never really got into Pokemon. I do strongly suspect, though, that if Pokemon had been around about 15 years ago I would've been all over it.
      • You forgot Metroid Revolution
        • Yeah, and Donkey Kong Country Revolution, Kirby Revolution, Mario Kart Revolution, etc.

          The point was just that Nintendo has an awful lot of well-liked franchises, and those must drive a pretty big number of console purchases.
    • rather than starting a new thread, i'll just reply to this.

      I Beleive the article should read that third-party developers may alienate nintendo, not the other way around.

  • If you read the article... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Admiral Ackbar 8 ( 848624 ) on Friday March 04, 2005 @05:55PM (#11848937)
    It also says that this new console will be so "revolutionary" that it may pull in more third party support.

    I read this as: our new system will be fundamentally different than other systems coming to the market. You won't be able to make a game for the other systems and easily port it to Revolution.
    • It also says that this new console will be so "revolutionary" that it may pull in more third party support.

      That will really depend on how the big software companies react in the near future. If everything becomes "EA style" (let's buy everyone so we don't have to innovate), then third-parties won't support Nintendo. On the other hand, if game companies hire really good game designers and actually try to innovate, they might love that new innovative Revolution console.

      Unfortunately, it seems game compani

      • Re:If you read the article... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by SetupWeasel ( 54062 ) on Friday March 04, 2005 @06:51PM (#11849415) Homepage
        That will really depend on how the big software companies react in the near future.

        I disagree. Nintendo will make enough good games to make the console worthwhile. With that in mind, it will depend on the consumers. If more choose the revoloution, the industry will shift that way.

        Unfortunately, it seems game companies prefer staying with what worked in the past and not try new things... otherwise, we'd see much more third party games on the DS

        You will see more third-party games. Developers simply can't port their previous code to the DS as easily as they can for the PSP. So a lot of derivative games are coming out more quickly for the PSP. The DS is likely to have more than twice the user base of the PSP for quite some time. Third parties like money, and plenty of them are signed on.
    • This is already been a partial issue with them in the past. Both the n64 and cube controllers really appeared to be designed around a super mario game, to the detriment of other established genres. For example, Street Fighter games had a working setup on the SNES controller, which made the transition to the PSX and PS2 controllers straightforward compared to the n64. While the n64 remained a distant second in fighters, owners were treated with a wholly new, innovative and fun design for the genre, now know

  • I feel a bit confused. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by game kid ( 805301 ) on Friday March 04, 2005 @05:56PM (#11848950) Homepage
    "If the next generation platforms are going to create even more gorgeous looking games using further enhanced functionality, and if that next-gen market can still expand the games industry, then I'm afraid that third-parties may not support Nintendo," he said.

    I feel a bit confused. Is he saying that the other consoles like PS3 and the second XBox may be better, and those better ones could destroy his chances of getting other developers to develop for the Revolution? (thus hurting its sales?)* Frankly I think it's already done so then; I remember some years ago when the show Extra were offering free PS2s and GameCubes but said they could not offer XBoxes (XBoxen?) due to extreme demand for them. I remember long lines shown in the news for the PS2 also (people shouting PS2! PS2!), but never heard of such massive demand for the 'Cube-only lots of ads and good games like a Zelda or two.

    *To those who think I should know these things because of my username (I remember such a post a while back): I'm game kid, not game expert. Give me a break, please.

    • GameCube (Score:4, Informative)

      by MonkeyCookie ( 657433 ) on Friday March 04, 2005 @06:19PM (#11849153)
      I remember when the Gamecube came out and there was a rush to get it. I know some of my friends had trouble finding one. It sold out during its initial release, but it wasn't like the popularity of the PS2.

      I think that the XBox came out around the same time, which got a bit more attention, although it didn't sell as well initially.
    • What he seems to be saying is that *IF* the market wants more of the same but with better graphics etc then it might be hard to attract third party developers to the Revolution, assumedly because the Revolution is going to be so different that those games couldn't easily (if at all) be ported to the Revolution.

    • Re:I feel a bit confused. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 04, 2005 @06:37PM (#11849299)
      Is he saying that the other consoles like PS3 and the second XBox may be better[?]

      Well, that depends on what you mean by "better," don't it? I'm pretty sure the president of Nintendo is going to believe that his company's console is "better" than its competitors. But which console will have "better" graphics? Which console will have "better" controllers? Which console will have "better" games? Is a "better" game one with "better" graphics or something even "betterer?"

      If you RTFA, he goes on to say that third party publishers and developers may also be attracted to the Revolution because it's different. If anything, he's saying that the typical schlock factories like EA won't have an easy time porting their unimaginative drivel to the Revolution because it will operate on entirely different concepts from the PS3 and XBox whatever. That's quite a lofty goal, but I'll wait until E3 before I do much thinking about it. I'd prefer to witness the unveiling without preconceived notions.

      If you're worried about graphics, note that the most popular of the three currently selling consoles is the weakest when it comes to graphics, a fact that has held back graphics on the XBox and Gamecube, much to my displeasure.
      • My take is that he's admitting that in terms of graphical and computational power Nintendo's next machine will not be in the same league as Sony's and Microsoft's offerings. Third parties that have switched over to "next-gen" development may not be interested in scaling down their processes for Nintendo's sake if they don't expect sales to make up for the investment.
        On the other hand, Nintendo are planning on including some "gimmick" (like the DS touch-screen) unique to their hardware that might attract dev
    • I feel a bit confused. Is he saying that the other consoles like PS3 and the second XBox may be better, and those better ones could destroy his chances of getting other developers to develop for the Revolution?

      No, what he's saying is that the Revolution will be nothing like your usual game console, it will have additional features and it will be a totally different concept of gaming. Thus, third-parties might have to decide on whether to make a game only for PS3 and Xbox2, or exclusively on Revolution, be

    • I think he's saying it will be different. Probably more focused on gameplay than flashy graphics. I really hope Nintendo are moving in the right direction because the game industry blandness that is creeping in worries me. Also, in the competition they probably couldn't offer Xboxes because they were too expensive, not in terms of console price, but usually they have to send competition prizes out by mail and the price of sending something as big and heavy as an xbox is phenomenal. For a long time the xbox
    • I'm guessing this confusing sentence was the result of quick and messing translation. I took the statement to mean that Nintendo is trying to do something a little different with it's next-gen console besides from beefing up the specs for faster, pretty graphics. I'm guessing that what ever they've got up there sleeve might not be kosher for some developers. I wouldn't be surprised if this is the case given some previous talked about rumors [slashdot.org] about the Revolution.

      I hope that Nintendo is really trying some
    • No, he is saying that the next version of the other consoles will be nothing more than horsepower improvements, whereas the Revolution will be something completely new in gaming.

  • Not entirely true... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LordZardoz ( 155141 ) on Friday March 04, 2005 @06:28PM (#11849224)
    What it will end up discouraging, if it is that different from other platforms, is porting.

    If a publisher was intrested in putting a game on Revolution, it would get there. But if the publisher was on the fence, and wanted to whore the game out on every platform, the Revolution would likely be skipped.

    It is possible that the Revolution will be similar enough to make porting to it a viable option, but gameplay dependent on Revolutions unique features would not be as portable.

    END COMMUNICATION

  • Nintendo says do or die? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by DuckofDeath87 ( 816504 ) on Friday March 04, 2005 @06:32PM (#11849252)
    That is a pretty bad /. title and article. Nintendo said that 3rd parties will be alienated if they dont like nintendo innovations. However, if these companies like the innovations, they will probably make games only for the revolution.

    Sounds like a rather bold business plan. I suppose Nintendo has decided to take very big risks in order to innovate gaming further and of course make N #1 again.

    Good Luck N!

    I for one welcome our new innovative gaming overlords.
    • I for one welcome our new innovative gaming overlords. Amen.
    • Nintendo said that 3rd parties will be alienated if they dont like nintendo innovations. However, if these companies like the innovations, they will probably make games only for the revolution.

      Let me just add that third-parties would have to like the Revolution a whole lot to make games exclusively for it. Or Nintendo would have to go the Sony/MS route and pay them off.

      Rob
      • Or Nintendo produce some kind of 1st party killer app which sells machines, establishes a userbase, and then the developers come, which strikes me as the most likely way they'll succeed, if indeed, they *do* succeed.

  • 3rd Party support isn't Nintendo's Stregnth (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Prien715 ( 251944 ) <agnosticpope.gmail@com> on Friday March 04, 2005 @07:36PM (#11849675) Journal
    If we look at the Gamecube, and even further back, it's easy to see Nintendo's stegnth, especially lately, has been in releasing incredible in-house titles. I'm talking Metroid Prime (1 and 2), SSBM, Paper Mario, Pikmin, and Animal Crossing (with exceptions like Viewtiful Joe). I don't expect Nintendo's platform to have the breadth of games PS3 will have; what I do expect is that, like in the present, it'll still be my favorite console because of depth (I have a PC for my RTS/FPS/GTA needs).

  • Look at Nintendo's History (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ALeavitt ( 636946 ) <aleavitt.gmail@com> on Friday March 04, 2005 @08:20PM (#11849897)
    If the Revolution is really so different as to discourage third-party developers from bringing out games, it would be a really brave move on Nintendo's part. However, look at their history. It is full of brave moves. The video game market had already crashed and burned when Nintendo wanted to bring out the NES. People thought that it would fail, but Nintendo pushed it anyway and changed everything. Then Sega came out with the Genesis, a superior system to the NES (at least hardware-wise) and Nintendo waited to bring out the Super NES until it had the right technology and the right gameplay ideas. They brought out Virtual Boy, which was completely different from anything on the market. Granted, that was a failed experiment, but it was an experiment nonetheless - not just an advance. With the Gamecube, they decided to shun the online players that Sony and Microsoft were going after, and have instead focused on the community aspect of multiplayer. Now there's the DS, an innovative, if imperfect, competitor for Sony's straight technological advance, the PSP. I have a feeling Nintendo knows what they're doing with these risks. They aren't going after the largest market share, they're trying to make good, innovative games that consistently change how we think of video gaming.
    • I agree with most points here, except it looks like youre trying to lump the Genesis in with the NES, implying the SNES was much better than the Genesis. The Sega Master System (8bit) came out around the time NES was big....then Genesis came out a year before the SNES and had roughly the same power. SNES's only real technological advantage was that it had 6bit color(128) while Genesis only had 5bit(64). Not only that, but if memory serves me correctly the Genesis had a more advanced sound chip than the SNES
      • The Genesis had a M68K main processor and a Z80 devoted to sound, the SNES had a custom 68K variant, and a Yamaha Synthesizer.
        • It's all subjective. If you prefer the way an FM synth + some PCM (YM2612 for FM and Z80 for single channel PCM) sounds over the way very limited multichannel PCM hardware sounds, then yeah, the Genesis had better sound hardware.

          I thought the SNES sounded way more advanced since I mainly played PC games at the time which usually didn't have any PCM music at all.
        • The SNES used a WDC 65c816, not related to the M68k at all.
      • What the heck are you talking about? The SNES and Genesis both had 4-bit graphics per tile. The SNES can support up to 16 different 16-color palettes, while the genesis can only push 4.
        The SNES wins on sound, with its MOD type music instead of simple wave synthesis.
        The Genesis wins on processing capabilities and screen resolution (320x240 vs 256x240).
    • Yes, the good people at Nintendo were thinking of your best interests when they decided to forego online gaming. Right now, they're in their workshop, hand-crafting everything for your enjoyment. They don't think about profit at all, unlike those bad people at Sony and Microsoft. They're in this for the sheer artistry of it all, and to make you (personally) great games.

      Excuse me now, I'm going to go look at Nintendo's real history (Pokemon, outrageous 3rd party licensing deals, etc.) and barf at the idea t
  • I for one think the state of gaming right now is pretty damn good. I don't want VR goggles or gyroscopes built into my controllers. I don't want to flail my arms in the air so I can move my onscreen character from point A to point B. What I do want is to sit on my couch, with a comfortable controller in hand, and play my games.
    • Wow thats just so...stupid. Like saying 640k RAM is all you would ever want in a computer. Without knowing how much a new interface could improve your videogaming, how can you say that its worth just dismissing. What a...troll.
      • Innovation will not always work in your favor. Nintendo heads should know this after some of their innovations have already blown up in their faces. When something works exceptionally well, why toss it out the window? If it comes to the point where the president of Nintendo says that the interface will be fundamentally different then what is the norm today, people should be skeptical, or worried. Not once while playing on a console or a pc have I thought to myself "boy, this interface is terrible, I wish I
        • Innovation will not always work in your favor.

          You're absolutely right. That's also what Iwata is saying.

          Nintendo heads should know this after some of their innovations have already blown up in their faces.

          Some of their innovations have been tremendously successful too. You cannot grow if you only make safe choices.

          When something works exceptionally well, why toss it out the window?

          Who said anything about that?

          If it comes to the point where the president of Nintendo says that the i

          • He didn't say that. He said "the platform would be fundamentally different from other game systems".

            No, he made comparisons between the Revolution and the Nintendo DS. He said that the main touch screen feature of the DS is what "could gain the eye of consumers who normally don't care about games". So I'm going to assume the fundamental difference between the Revolution and the other next-gen consoles is the interface.

            And why should anyone be "scared" except for the Nintendo shareholders? If you don't li

    • Take your stagnancy somewhere else (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mcasaday ( 562287 ) on Friday March 04, 2005 @11:05PM (#11850628)
      I for one think the state of gaming right now is pretty damn good.

      I, on the other hand, am very happy to see a company pushing to make games that are better than just "pretty damn good." You may be content with the way games are right now, but others, like myself, yearn for something more.

      I think the games we play now don't even scratch the surface of what is possible with interactive entertainment. So, I'm encouraged when a game company says that it's going to do something so different, so out there, that they believe it may alienate them from potential partners within the industry. It means that I'm not the only one out there who is a little disappointed with "the state of gaming right now."

      • And alot of people are happy with the way games are now, and the direction Microsoft and Sony are taking it. I think there's tons of innovation still to be had on the software side of things aswell.
        • I think there's tons of innovation still to be had on the software side of things aswell.

          Me too. In fact, software was what I was primarily thinking about when I wrote that comment. No matter how interesting the hardware might be, it's not worth a damn if there isn't software. This is essentially what makes Nintendo's move so risky. The new platform might be really cool, but if no one makes games for it, it's all for naught.

          Hardware can have a profound affect on the software written for it. Ninte

    • Re:Take your revolution somewhere else (Score:4, Funny)

      by cowscows ( 103644 ) on Saturday March 05, 2005 @12:13PM (#11853015) Journal
      How can you be so insanely cynical and negative towards something you know nothing about. At least save that crap for when they announce what this "revolution" is. Then you can at least pretend to know what you're talking about.

      Normally people don't start talking that bitter about the future until they're like 80 years old. If you are 80, and you play video games, then good for you, weirdo.

  • "Revolution" is fundamentally different? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jgoemat ( 565882 ) on Friday March 04, 2005 @09:33PM (#11850235)
    It seems to me that they are saying that there will be something fundamentally different about their new system that it will not be able to play games that are on current systems. Therefore, if 3rd party developers make a game for the new system, there is no way they could make a similar game on the other systems and vice-versa because the concepts are completely different. Maybe the interface won't be a standard controller (maybe an eye-toy like device, microphone, gloves that know where they are in 3d space and what your fingers are doing, etc.).

    Think about it like this... Let's say current consoles are like decks of cards. You can play lots of games with a standard deck of cards (poker, rummy, etc.) and there are different types of cards with their own games (Rook, Uno, etc.). Let's then say that Nintendo's "Revolution" is like a board game. It's very hard to play Risk, Chess, or Axis and Allies with a deck of cards, just like it would be hard to play Poker or Uno as a board game.

    Then again maybe they're just using all this vagueness to hype the system before it's out.

    At any rate, we are still looking at E3 as a launching pad for the "Revolution" platform, and are deliberating if we should feature the actual console, visuals, or simply illustrate the concept behind it. At the same time, while we are aiming to make some form of a positive impression, we also want to avoid giving away too much, and are therefore currently in a dilemma about the situation. What we are sure of, however, is that fun isn't something that can be expressed in figures, and we are ever mindful of how we can illustrate the difference offered by our particular brand of fun."
  • ...good PR. Sony will pay millions of dollars for print and televised ads that hint at a glorious future for gaming when the PS3 comes due, probably using vague terms like last iteration's "Emotion Engine" to discourage average customers from doing any proper research or comparison. Nintendo did the same with a painfully brief quote in an equally brief article. Free publicity is something Iwata may be banking on, based on the silence regarding the new console design beyond that threatening "no more d-pad" s

Slashdot Top Deals

To the landlord belongs the doorknobs.

Close