Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Nintendo Businesses Entertainment Games

Revolution May Launch Last 157

Posted by Zonk from the last-one-into-the-pool dept.
Nintendo President Satoru Iwata has publicly stated that the Revolution may be the last next-gen console to market. From the article: "Until today, Nintendo has said only that the Revolution will be released in 2006 in North America, without specifying any date. Iwata's comments indicate that the console could appear after the launch of Sony's PlayStation 3, which is currently slated for a spring 2006 launch in the US. Microsoft's Xbox 360 will arrive on store shelves during the 2005 holiday season worldwide."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Revolution May Launch Last More

Revolution May Launch Last

Comments Filter:
  • Early bird gets the worm, but the first one to trip on the stairs gets mangled.

    Depending on how next-gen consoles plays out, this is either A Good Thing, or A Bad Thing.
    • As long as they release it before Christmas 2006 in all the markets they still have a fighting chance. A full year can certainly earn an advantage, but if they come out just a few months later than the other guys it's not as big a deal. Also, remember Nintendo is still Japan centric, and there they only have one competition, Sony.

    • Re:This could be good ...or bad. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by AnObfuscator ( 812343 ) <oneringNO@SPAMphys.ufl.edu> on Sunday July 03, 2005 @06:17PM (#12975855) Homepage

      Also, don't forget that the console market is not a zero-sum game. Many gamers will want multiple consoles -- so just because most people are buying XBox or Playstation doesn't mean they *won't* buy Revolution.

      in fact, the delayed introduction might even be an advantage. After everyone buys their Playstation/Xbox, they save their money for a few months, play out the first big PS3/360 games... and then have the spare cash to buy a new Revolution.

      At any rate, the Revolution looks like a very strong console, on the game front -- especially if it's true that it can play all of nintendo's old games. I can play the latest games, AND SuperMario, AND Starfox 64, AND Perfect Dark... all on the same box? Count me in. :)

  • Not a surprise (Score:5, Interesting)

    by HunterZ ( 20035 ) on Sunday July 03, 2005 @06:11PM (#12975816) Journal
    This isn't really a surprise. I don't think anyone would argue that Nintendo is now definitely locked into the runner-up position in the race for dominance in the home video game console market, with Sony and Microsoft going toe-to-toe for the title of top dog. It seems to me that Nintendo has decided to adopt a different philosophy than the other two companies, marketing its products to a combination of children gamers and those who are interested in novel new game ideas. As a result, Nintendo has slipped into a niche market (which I like to call "the Disney of video games") that seems to be keeping it alive.

    What's more interesting to me these days is that Nintendo's hand-held console dominance now stands a real chance of being usurped (by the PSP) for the first time since they entered the market with the original Game Boy. Others such as Sega and Atari tried but failed due to the fact that Nintendo was king of home (TV) consoles at the time, but now Nintendo is limiting itself to its more niche audience with the (comparatively gimmicky) DS and could be seriously threatened by the PSP's more broad appeal.

    Despite all this, however, I predict that Nintendo will be around for quite some time (in one form or another at least). Their ability to shift gears when needed (remember how the original NES revived the dying home console market in the first place?) and to develop/market new and innovative -- if not practical and appealing -- ideas will assure them some kind of presence for the forseeable future.

    • Re:Not a surprise (Score:5, Interesting)

      by cowscows ( 103644 ) on Sunday July 03, 2005 @06:25PM (#12975897) Journal
      The gameboy did not survive its challengers because of nintendo's position in the home console market. The gameboy was successful for two much simpler reasons. First off, battery life. Second, Tetris.

      The game gear was really neat, but it ate batteries too fast to be that useful. Tetris was a game with huge appeal across a whole bunch of age groups, and bundling that with the gameboy was the smartest move nintendo ever made. I don't know why the DS didn't ship with a couple simple games pre-installed. Minesweeper would've been a great start. A quick version of solitaire. They probably could've licensed Snood for pretty cheap, and then they would've sold a DS to my mom and every one of her friends. Those quick and easy games are what portables are for.

      • Expanding the sphere of people you can target with a system is always going to look good on your bottom line. I always used to be amazed how many people had gameboys who weren't typical gamers. It shouldn't have surprised me: most people don't give a crap about the "cool" games, but they love stuff like tetris, tamagotchie, solitaire, minesweeper, etc.

        I guess, in the end, it's not the gamers that make the money for the companies but the mainstream non-gamers who buy the system for the simple stuff.

      • Re:Not a surprise (Score:4, Insightful)

        by HunterZ ( 20035 ) on Sunday July 03, 2005 @07:06PM (#12976153) Journal
        Those are some good points. It's also worth adding that the gameboy probably stuck around so long in the U.S. due more to the Pokemon games than to the numerous hardware variants released over time (GB Color, GB Pocket, etc.).
      • My girlfriend is basically a non-gamer, but she just spent all yesterday playing Nintendogs on a imported, pink DS.

        Why those things aren't available in the US yet is the real question.

      • I don't know why the DS didn't ship with a couple simple games pre-installed.

        Other than Metroid Prime Hunters First Hunt?

        Minesweeper would've been a great start

        Minesweeper, or Luminesweeper [jk0.org]?

        They probably could've licensed Snood for pretty cheap

        Bust-A-Move and the knockoff known as Snood are already officially ported to the GBA.

        • Built in. BUILT IN! Pictochat was fun for about two minutes. Most of the time when I'm playing with my DS, there isn't another one in range. Besides, if I wanted to talk to someone, I'd close the DS and start a conversation.

          The metroid game has a limited audience, and isn't really the sort of game that makes portable gaming worthwhile. It requires too much of a time investment to sit down and play. Not to mention that it's on its own little seperate card that is a pain in the ass to keep track of.

          Whether
        • ### Other than Metroid Prime Hunters First Hunt?

          The Metroid Prime Hunters demo is hardly worth to talk about, its something you can finish in 20min and which has basically zero replay value in singleplayer. While its better then nothing I would have much prefered something that is actually fully playable and keeps you busy for a while.

    • Re:Not a surprise (Score:5, Interesting)

      by cgenman ( 325138 ) on Sunday July 03, 2005 @09:26PM (#12976793) Homepage
      Despite all this, however, I predict that Nintendo will be around for quite some time (in one form or another at least). Their ability to shift gears when needed (remember how the original NES revived the dying home console market in the first place?) and to develop/market new and innovative -- if not practical and appealing -- ideas will assure them some kind of presence for the forseeable future.

      They also have the remarkable ability to be and stay tremendously profitable. Since the launch of the NES, they have not had a single year in the red, and have remained the most profitable game industry company though clever licensing and milking everyone for all they're worth.

      Nintendo, like Apple, will be ok. You don't have to have the highest volume to make the most profit.

      And the DS is currently outselling the PSP pretty solidly, due mainly to innovative titles and being slightly cheaper.

      • And the DS is currently outselling the PSP pretty solidly, due mainly to innovative titles and being slightly cheaper.

        I would guess that significant factors in lower PSP sales include the following:
        - Weak launch title selection. They covered all the genres (except FPS) but many of the titles suck from what I've heard
        - Screen defects. Stuck pixels are fine if they go away (and not everyone knew they would), but dead pixels, dirt, and warped spots in the screens are not cool - especially when they occur in
        • Keep in mind that your average gamer isn't going to avoid a system because of dead pixels. That's only for nerds like us. ;)

          A weak launch title selection wasn't too big of an issue; their long title list was larger than Nintendo, and Mario 64 can't carry a launch.

          Limited volume my ass! I know that the whole world doesn't live in the Chicagoland area, but in the greater Metropolitan area, I never once saw a store that had fewer than 5 PSPs in stock during the first few weeks. And yes, I know I didn't visit
        • why not meet demand unless you're afraid your product sucks?
          You and your Keynesian views! The demand line isn't horizontal, it slopes down and to the right!
        • The reason Sony has to limit there numbers is that it takes lots of money and commitment to tie up fab plants/assemblers, all of which are outsourced. They are also sourcing many different little bit from different companies at set prices for set volumes. Shifting gears on short notice is impossible.
      • They [Nintendo] also have the remarkable ability to be and stay tremendously profitable. Since the launch of the NES, they have not had a single year in the red, and have remained the most profitable game industry company though clever licensing and milking everyone for all they're worth.

        Sure, they've been pretty good at milking their products, and they've produced a string of great games over the years. However, Nintendo is far from the gaming power house that they were at the time of the NES/SNES. They

    • As a result, Nintendo has slipped into a niche market (which I like to call "the Disney of video games")


      I'd agree with you, except:

      A) I don't think Disney is the "Disney" of their market anymore. Maybe Pixar?

      B) Nintendo doesn't have a stranglehold on innovation anymore -- remember Katamari Damacy, etc.
  • Nintendo doesn't seem to be trying to compete with the PS3 and Xbox 360. I recall reading a quote somewhere from the president of Nintendo claiming that the Revolution would be more than just a gaming system. I don't remember what he said it was supposed to be. I just don't think Nintendo is really worrying about the PS3 and Xbox 360 coming out before the Revolution because it's more than just a gaming system, apparently.

    Who knows, though? I don't have the quote anymore, so I could just be imagining thing
    • I thought Nintendo were all about making the Revolution "just a gaming system" :)

      Nah, I know what you mean. It's all in the controller, apparently.

      I think Nintendo know what they're doing, to be honest. When the DS was announced, I decided they'd shot themselves in the foot and essentially handed Sony a sizeable slice of the handheld market, but the DS has by far the most interesting line-up, and I think sales figures are substantially higher, at least on a worldwide level.

      Alan: I loved that phrase you

      • " When the DS was announced, I decided they'd shot themselves in the foot and essentially handed Sony a sizeable slice of the handheld market"

        Just for clarification: The PSP was in development long before the DS was announced. There have been rumors about the PSP since a year or two after the PS1 was launched. Sony's been trying for years to release a new 'walkman'.
    • All three companies are claiming their systems are "more than just a gaming system", so I don't really see the difference here.
      • "All three companies are claiming their systems are "more than just a gaming system", so I don't really see the difference here."

        Sony and MS are under the impression that integrating video games and passive entertainment is some big whoop-de-fuck. It's pretty clear that Nintendo's idea of "more than just a game machine" doesn't mean duct-taping movie playing capabilities with it.

        If I sound bitter, it's because I am. The rumors of $300-$450 price tags for the new machines is disheartening.
        • If I recall, the NES, SNES, Playstation, PS2, and XBox all came out as $300US.

          • Re:It's called inflation (Score:4, Informative)

            by NanoGator ( 522640 ) on Monday July 04, 2005 @01:44AM (#12977845) Homepage Journal
            The NES Launched at either $199 or $249 depending on if you got the one with the Light Zapper etc or not. SNES launched at $199. As I recall, it came with Super Mario World. Also, the DreamCast came out at $199. The Sega Genesis came in at a little under $200.

            I can't imagine why somebody would pay $400 for a whoop-de-fuck Playstation with go-faster stripes. I'll happily back down on that comment if the PS3 actually launches with new games. I mean new in the sense that they're not just higher-res sequels of old games. (Note: At least the original Playstation managed this. I don't mean because it was the first of the line, but it really was a different gaming experience.)
    • I recall reading a quote somewhere from the president of Nintendo claiming that the Revolution would be more than just a gaming system. I don't remember what he said it was supposed to be. I just don't think Nintendo is really worrying about the PS3 and Xbox 360 coming out before the Revolution because it's more than just a gaming system, apparently.

      I was under the exact opposite impression - the PS3 and Xbox 360 are trying to infiltrate the living room as multi-purpose set-top devices by incorporating co

      • If I recall coretly, the new XBox is pretty much one of Microsoft's "Media Center PC"s that can play XBox games. I don't see the point in that, gamers want to play games, and not have to deal with everything else. An occasional CD or DVD is fine, but, I'm guessing they'll put in connection to your PC for photo shows and such, which in my mind, would be a turn off, and annoyance for gamers.
      • I found something that backs up my thoughts, but in a different way.

        Gamespot [gamespot.com] has a nice article from when the Revolution was first really talked about.

        "Iwata said the DS and PSP aren't directly competing, because Nintendo is aiming for nongamers and retired gamers with its handheld, while Sony is targeting the traditional gaming audience. He added that his company will also attempt to avoid competing in the next-gen console market. "

        So they don't plan on competing. I think they're right in believin

  • Good (Score:3, Insightful)

    by 77Punker ( 673758 ) <(spencr04) (at) (highpoint.edu)> on Sunday July 03, 2005 @06:39PM (#12975989)
    It's too early for a new system. My Gamecube still gets 60 fps in most games all the time. They should wait until the current hardware is really challenged before they start selling something more powerful.

    • Re:Good (Score:3, Insightful)

      by patternjuggler ( 738978 )
      My Gamecube still gets 60 fps in most games all the time.

      How do know what fps you're getting?
      • Thank you. I get exhausted reading reviews, and just general opinions, of console games which include their fps measurement. If a game is fun and doesn't demonstrate significant slowdown (like running into an area and then suddenly getting choppy visuals), the frame rate never enters my mind. When I first played Unreal Tournament years ago, I was having a great time going through all the bot matches and when I - just for the pure hell of it - turned on the fps indicator, my fun level didn't go down when

    • Re:Good (Score:3, Insightful)

      by HawkingMattress ( 588824 )
      You realize this is consoles we are talking about, and that developpers restrain themselves to put too much strain on them because unlike with pcs, they can't take the excuse that you just need a better system ?
      Nobody's going to release a game that will crawl on a gamecube, even if we're still waiting for the revolution in 2 years. Either they won't release the game on the gc because it can't compete, or they'll trim everything down until the required fluidity is there.
      • When the latest games were playing slowly on my N64 (think Perfect Dark), I was ready for a new system.

    • Re:Good (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      This is a bit of a misunderstanding of how the console market works. You don't necessarily get games running at a lower fps towards the end of a cycle.

      PCs are a continually evolving platform. New graphics cards, processors etc come out every few months, more or less. If a developer makes two PC games a year apart, the second game can theoretically be designed to a higher technical specification than the earlier one, as technology has moved on in the mean-time. Consoles, however, are essentially a static pl

  • May be beneficial (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I believe that the fact that Nintendo's console will probably launching last is a plus. They will be able to learn from the mistakes of it's competitors, and hopefully have more time for development and research.
    • I believe it will also provide Nintendo with another key... The ability to remain profitable even though it's likely going to sell fewer units than their competitors.

      After reading the past few articles on the Next Gen... I don't blame them. Sony losing 1 Billion Dollars on the PS3, and we all know Microsoft is still in the red with the current X-Box.

      The way I see it... Nintendo can wait. You have to applaud any company that can have quarter after quarter after quarter with their books in the green. /shrug

  • You guys are ridiculous (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mouse_clicker ( 760426 ) on Sunday July 03, 2005 @06:55PM (#12976083)
    First off, the question of high definition support is entirely beside the point. I personally would love to play Mario and Zelda in glorious high definition, but if you honestly think it's going to contribute to Nintendo's "failure" next generation, you need to get a clue. First off, the analog shut out won't be in 2006, it most likely won't even be in 2007, according to the FCC itself. They won't even do the analog shutout until at least 85% of household TVs can receive all digital broadcasts, which some estimate could be another 20 years. Realistically we're not looking at switching over to all digital broadcasts until 2010-2015, which falls squarely into the realm of "the generation after next". Secondly, now that we've established that Nintendo isn't somehow cutting off all their customers, we can move on to the other flaw in your argument- high definition video was never going to be a selling point of the Revolution anyway, it's *not* a system like the Xbox 360 or PS3. Whether the Revolution succeeds or fails will be based entirely on its supposedly mind blowing new concept, *not* what resolution it outputs in, it was never going to figure into a customer's decision to purchase it. Hell, the DS (unfortunately) outputs in a drastically lower resolution than the PSP and is currently stomping it worldwide. That's proof that if you pack your system full of enough other features, stuff like resolution doesn't matter. Not to say I *condone* this practice- not at all, I think the money Nintendo is saving by foregoing high definition support will be trivial at best- but I *am* saying that this isn't as big an issue as many people are making it out to be. Now that we have that garbage out of the way, let's move on to the real issue at hand. I'm going to explain exactly why I don't think the Revolution will fail at all. E3 was a very revealing show this year; not literally, in the sense that the PS3 and Xbox 360 were physically unveiled, but in the sense that know exactly where all 3 major competitors are heading next generation. Sony and Microsoft are at each other's throats, they're going to fight to death over the 18-24 male demographic and have designed systems that are almost identical. Both companies will be pouring millions upon millions of dollars to edge out the other and it's going to end up being a stalemate, mainly because Sony has a much larger user base and Microsoft has a much larger bank account. Nintendo, however, is taking an entirely different approach. I've come to realize now that the DS was more or less a field test for that they're doing with the Revolution- it's a piece of electronics that introduces something completely new and innovative which offers the possibility for radically different games and is appealing to people who have never even had a casual interest in gaming. In an interview, the head of Nintendo's European division commented that, despite everyone's expectations (including mine), the DS is *not* eating into the sales of the GBA, and that's because it's attracting a different type of gamer for the most part. Nintendo hopes to replicate this phenomenon on a much larger scale with the Revolution- it is going to be a system that introduces an entirely new way to play games, and that is going to attract brand new gamers. While Sony and Microsoft duke it out over the established gaming public, which, admittedly, is very large, Nintendo is going after the vast untapped *sea* of potential customers that are the non-gamers, and they're doing this right under Sony and Microsoft's noses. I think Nintendo has finally realized that they simply can't compete on a marketing level with Sony and Microsoft- they don't have the vehemence, they don't have the sheer will, and they certainly don't have the talent for it. So instead of trying to wrestle customers away from their deeper-pocketed competitors, they're going down an entirely different route and making brand new customers. It won't be an overnight thing, but their army of converted gamers will grow and grow to the point where Nintendo will
    • Sony and Microsoft see the growing game market in the US and Europe. Nintendo sees the shrinking game market in Japan. Nintendo execs have said over and over that many people are becoming uninterested in video games.

      I don't think it is about lack of will or talent that Nintendo is taking the path they are. I think Nintendo really believes that the future of the industry is outside the 18-24 male demographic. They see shrinking sales in Japan and predict it won't be long until the US and European markets ju
      • I agree I myself am in that 18-24 demographic and more and more I'm seeing people just being kinda tired of the same old same old. Only so many ways you can your gaming experience better with today's controls. The DS was exciting because it tried something new. It wasn't well used at first, but I have been hearing good things about many games that have yet to be released in the US. I am watching the big N closely. I really hope whatever their crazy plan is, works.
        --
        Random Signature #2
        Generated by SlashdotR [snop.com]
    • *Hits the wall of text* Ouch... text...

    • high definition video was never going to be a selling point of the Revolution anyway

      If revolution Were to let me play my Gamecube games in high definition, it would make me get it even if it has a weak launch line-up. It would be like launching with a lot of generation 4.5 games (Gamecube being 4th generation, and Revolution 5th)

      I think the next generation of games will be what sell HD. Games solve the "catch 22" problem of the HD hardware selling or HD content coming first, because games can be ea

      • You can't just convert gamecube graphics to HD like that. Even if you threw enough hardware at it, and scaled up everything, the textures and artwork aren't designed to be output at the resolution. It would look like crap. There isn't enough detail to fill all those pixels.

        It's like watching a TV show on your computer. You can do it in a little window on the screen and it'll look ok. Or you can blow it up to full size, and it'll look like complete crap, because it was designed to play on a lower resolutio

        • Even if you threw enough hardware at it, and scaled up everything, the textures and artwork aren't designed to be output at the resolution. It would look like crap. There isn't enough detail to fill all those pixels.

          Ever tried running FCE Ultra or Snes9x under "hq2x" interpolation mode? It makes classic systems' graphics look almost PS1 quality. A Nintendo rep did comment that a lot of the classic games in Revolution's online rental service would get a facelift.

          • I'm not shure if any of the current (or next gen) consoles or even pc games for that matter do this, but in 3dsMax you have prodcedural textures.
            If games were to do this where possible it would scale indefinately. However there is bound to be a significant cpu overhead. Especially when you get translucency and reflection and subsurface scattering involved.
            The more I think about the more likely it seems we've got a bit of a wait before this is standard in consoles.

            Mycroft

        • You can't just convert gamecube graphics to HD like that.

          But you can... I occasionally play Mario 64 and Zelda 64 at 1600*1200 (I can even play Zelda at 1920*1200 without stretching the graphics) The textures are still just as blurry close up, of course, but all the geometry is sharper, and I can see far away textures clearer. And how about those split-screen games that show you only a quarter of the screen, would they not greatly benefit from HD?

          It is not like viewing normal TV on an HD monitor.

          • This is not entirely true. Some of the GameCube games, like Mario Sunshine for instance, use post-processing effects to provide distance 'haze' and other such effects. If you tried to render the final geometry to the screen on a higher resolution, you'd at best get pretty much the same thing, only a little blurrier. At worst, you could end up seeing distracting artifacts of algorithms that you wouldn't have seen otherwise, like warping geometry that makes the horizon look like a dancing curtain.

            To get b

  • This is assuming a lot of things. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SetupWeasel ( 54062 ) on Sunday July 03, 2005 @07:01PM (#12976115) Homepage
    First and foremost, that the PS3 will launch in Spring 2006. The PSP was supposed to launch worldwide at the end of 2004. Ask our European friends how accurate Sony's launch forcasts are.

    The PS3's GPU isnt finished yet. The first Cell prototype was unveiled in March, and it wasn't even the version that will be used in the PS3. I have not heard if that is finished yet.

    No one knows how far along the Revolution is. Some people take a lack of news to mean that it is behind, but they said the same thing about the DS before it beat the PSP into every territory.

    Wait and see. Nintendo will likely wait for 3 things: the production capacity to meet demand, launch titles to sell the machine, and the infrastructure for their online network. The Revolution will launch when they have those three things or November 2006, whichever comes first.
  • "the console could appear after the launch of Sony's PlayStation 3, which is currently slated for a spring 2006 launch in the US." Whoa, I never heard anything about that. They announced at E3 that the PS3 would be released in spring of 2006, but they never said anything about a worldwide spring launch, did they? As far as I know Sony's shooting for a fall 2006 US launch, which would probably coincide with the Revolution's release.

  • Nintendo going last is good. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MeanderingMind ( 884641 ) on Sunday July 03, 2005 @08:55PM (#12976691) Homepage Journal
    Honestly, coming out last is the best thing Nintendo can possibly do. Here's my reasoning.

    Nintendo's Revolution is already going to be cheaper than the other consoles, and is still very likely to make money per console. If the Revolution came out first, a lot of people (erroneously of course, but we've already seen how the persistant erroneous statements that the GameCube was 'just for kids' and 'has no adult games' hurt it) will assume that because it is both cheaper and coming out first is must therefore be worse that the Xbox 360 and PS3. However, by coming out last and cheaper, Nintendo simply makes many gamers who failed to look before they lept feel stupid for spending $100-$150 more for consoles that aren't significantly better.

    Additionally, Nintendo has a history of being copied. Regardless of whether the controller is a red herring or the sole source of revolution, coming out last gives Nintendo the edge in that they can keep their Revolution secret for longer. If they were coming out before or at the same time as their competitors, they'd need to release information on the Revolution around the same time as Sony and Microsoft and give them plenty of time to make similar improvements or copies of the technology.

    Even now, a lot of the hardware for the Xbox 360 isn't even set yet. Of course, if the Revolution is solely within the controller that hardly matters because surely whenever the controller is revealed the secretly assembled crack teams of Sony and Microsoft will be ready to make quick prototypes of their own similar controllers. However, I find it likely that the controllers are a red herring. Perhaps half the revolution lies within the controller, but I predict that either the revolutionary controller will require something that requires special hardware within the console to work, or is useless without the other console half of the revolution.

    In any case, releasing last, Nintendo's secret can be kept so until the hardware for the other two consoles is immutable.

    Also, being last means that technology will have improved, and thus opening up more opportunities to make a console as powerful as Sony's or Microsoft's without the crazy costs.

    The last point is that, remaining last Nintendo can take a good look at the mistakes Sony and Microsoft make, and not repeat them. With the article concerning the design of the competitor's CPUs claiming they are hardly as good as was claimed, Nintendo could easily make a similar CPU that is not plagued with the same problems.

    That's my take on it all.
    • Really, you guys drive me nuts. Everything Nintendo does is suddenly the "best possible" outcome for Nintendo. Let's be honest here, coming out last is a mistake. Maybe coming out 2nd would be beneficial to hide some of its ideas, but I can't imagine it being anything that is going to be a "killer app" to make it the must have console.

      So let's focus on what Nintendo has going for it (in regards to its competition). 1) They will have the cheapest console. 2) Their console is much more desirable to fa

      • It's all good. (Score:2, Insightful)

        by MeanderingMind ( 884641 )
        Firstly, sorry if you're being driven nuts. But remember there is A) Always a fanboy whose heart will not be swayed until the corpse of Mario/MasterChief/Sonic/Sony's Exec is rotting in front of them B) Actually, there's quite a lot of them. Additionally, you're C) Never going to convince them otherwise and D) Are probably wasting your time if that is the demographic you're targeting with your post.

        The people who I attempt to speak to are those who aren't on any side, and for those people insight as to why

  • Anti-marketing (Score:4, Interesting)

    by nobodyman ( 90587 ) on Sunday July 03, 2005 @09:38PM (#12976827) Homepage
    On one hand, it's refreshing to see that Nintendo's public statements and overall marketing strategy take the opposite form of Microsoft and Sony. Microsoft and Sony are bombarding us with press releases, telling us about how insanely powerful the hardware and games will be. there is no way that the systems can live up to the hype. Nintendo's marketing is muted, honest, and realistic.

    That said, I think it's almost swinging too far in the opposite direction. It's gotten to the point to where Iwata's statements stop sounding like "refreshing honesty" and go into downright "negative". Let's review the the more notable PR coming from nintendo
    • Revolution wont be as powerful as 360 or PS3, but it will be *different*
    • Revolution will fail if the games dont exploit how *different* it is.
    • Aaaah!! The gaming industry is on the verge of collapse!!
    • Third parties may not "get it", and may shy away from the platform because, well, it's just so *different*.
    • We're not ready to show the Revolution at E3...
    • The controller's not quite finished yet.. but trust us, but we've shown some sketches to some third parties and they liked it.
    • No HD support. You don't need it.
    • Will probably launch after 360 and and PS3.
    Of course, I'm being tonue-in-cheek, and I'm ignoring the "teaser" press releases that do sound interesting (online play, full nintendo library, yadda yadda), but it largely seems as though anything you read about Revolution isn't something you'd necessarily want to tell the hole world about. I mean, sure, be honest and everything, that's great. But it's one thing to let it slip in an interview that the Revolution will not have HD, but quite another to go to the media screaming "HEY GUYS!!! THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT HAVE HD!!! TELL YOUR FRIENDS!!"

    It's like Nintendo has adopted a sort of devil-may-care, go-buy-a-revolution-but-if-you-dont-oh-well strategy that I don't quite understand.

    Beyond Nintendo... I'm getting damn tired of all the press releases from the Big Three in general. I've never seen so many press releases preceding an actual picture of an actual game running on actual hardware (not some tech demo on a dual-cpu uberPC/Mac tricked out with an to-be-released video card). This is even worse than the last wave of consoles. Put up or shut up for cryin out loud!

    • Re:Anti-marketing (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Grey Ninja ( 739021 )
      Put up or shut up for cryin out loud!

      Isn't that exactly what Nintendo is doing? Shutting up? They get interviewed a LOT because people want to know what the secrets of the Revolution are. But they never ever say anything. Stories like this get posted, as we are still waiting for Nintendo, and the major news outlets have to post SOMETHING to keep their jobs.

      And if you think about it, it was the same thing as last generation. Microsoft and Sony went on and on about how powerful their consoles wer
  • Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't /. cover a story a while back where someone from nintedo stated that they were very intent on making sure their next console (revolution) was NOT released last?
  • iwata said that it could possibly fall be hind by a small amount. that means 1 or 2 months. that's just too insignificant to make a difference. I think the PSP won't be going anywhere for a while, but it may discourage Sony from making another handheld console. I mean, it's early in the game, but so far the PSP has failed to overtake Nintendo's marketshare, and has failed to be profitable and probably won't for a good amount of time. All it's doing right now is hindering Sony by eating their money. Th

  • Nintendo is always late to market. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Zangief ( 461457 ) on Sunday July 03, 2005 @11:14PM (#12977239) Homepage Journal
    Except for their original Nes and Gameboy.

    -Super Nes. After the Turbo Graf 16 and Genesis had been released.
    -Nintendo 64. Much delayed, released after Saturn and Playstation.
    -Gamecube. Released after PS2 and almost at the same time than Xbox

    So, when Iwata originally announced that Revolution would be released at least at the same time than PS3, I was happy. Now I see that nothing has changed at Nintendo since the change of CEOs.
  • I know its supposed to have this cool controller, but beyond that what does the revolutoin have going for it? I love gamecube and my gameboy advanced, but what they should do is see what Microsoft will put in the Xbox, and match it or exceed it...since they are both using the same processor type (powerpc) and graphic card company. Or they should launch the system at a much lower price, like 150, not a price like the budget dreamcast price like of 200 versus 300 for a full featured system.
    However, I am ea

Slashdot Top Deals

Do you suffer painful hallucination? -- Don Juan, cited by Carlos Casteneda

Close