Support NeoGAF

[SolidSnakex]

If Nintendo decides to get into a money-bleeding contest with MS or Sony, Nintendo will lose. Why would they want to do that?

Maybe not compete on the exact same level, but atleast put up a fight. Get an actual marketing company that won't create commercial atrocities like that terrible Mario Sunshine commercial for example.

 

[Makura]

This is true, but you've got to consider that MS worked from nothing basically. They had no respect in the console industry and had to build it all up. .

New things always create more buzz eventually, MS had that on their side.

Overall Nintendo's definetly the one that's having to come from behind, not MS.

In some ways yes, but in other ways no.

 

[TheGreenGiant]

ssx is that a pic from some sort of pheonix king movie?

 

[Kobun Heat]

Get an actual marketing company that won't create commercial atrocities like that terrible Mario Sunshine commercial for example.

Uhhh... the Who Are You campaign? The awesome, stylized GBA commercials?

You seem to be living in 2001.

 

[SolidSnakex]

Uhhh... the Who Are You campaign? The awesome, stylized GBA commercials?

You seem to be living in 2001.

Nah i'm in the now..The Who Are You campaign is nice as are those GBA commericals. They don't make up for the GC commercials they have running now of that kid running around the psych ward talking about games.

GreenGiant, it's frlom Nakashima Mika's Hi no tori music video.

 

[TheGreenGiant]

GreenGiant, it's frlom Nakashi...

you lost me right about... there.


on the topic of GC ads, the cube actually had some nice ads; I quite like the one where the guy had a cube heart, cornea... and the tag with like "500 games" or something. I thought it was rather cool. The lauch spinning glass cube adds were also brilliant.

Somewhere along the line... came the indigo colour and handle bar that derailed their campaign. Judging by SP/DS... revolution should be a rather nice looking kit. Nintendo has/will learn for their battle wounds and I expect revolution to be a competitor in more ways than people give them credit for.

 

[jarrod]

I'm sure both Sony and MS could constantly be posting profits if they were as conservative as Nintendo is. The difference is that they want to win and to win you can't be conservative.

Nintendo's profitability doesn't come from their cautious platform decisions, it stems from their strong software preformance. They just make sure hardware design doesn't take too much of a toll loss wise... which might be the problem. Nintendo thinks like a software company, not a hardware company. They like to cut corners when possible on hardware and put everything they've got into software.

Still, I doubt SCE and the XBox division could do anything to pull in the profits Nintendo does much less following the same route. They just don't have the overall software libraries for it, despite a few irregular hits between them (GT, SOCOM, Everybody Golf & Halo mainly).

OK. Well, Nintendo has been dominated by a newcomer twice in a row now.

I wouldn't exactly call 270k domination. Especially when it's taken a full 3.5 years to get that far.

The only one doing any dominating this gen is Sony.

 

[Teddman]

Look at how Western games have enjoyed a resurgence of global sales this gen, now on par with and surpassing Japanese software. The next Xbox console will be in a good position to enjoy quick PC ports by virtue of the XNA developer tools as well.

 

[sonycowboy]

Alot of your arguments seem to have more to do with Sony vs. MS than Nintendo vs. MS next gen also. The 4th and 5th things will be the biggest problems MS has to overcome next gen to top Nintendo. They did do it this gen though, so it's a good possibility next gen that they'll do it again if things go the way they are now. I'd say Nintendo overall has alot more to be worried about. Like you said, MS has done alot right this gen and Nintendo hasn't. MS is on a roll going into next gen, and Nintendo really isn't. Overall Nintendo's definetly the one that's having to come from behind, not MS.

I just don't agree. My argument isn't really about A vs B vs C. It's about how each company is positioned for the next generation. I just think Microsoft from a strategic advantage has more obstacles that the other guys. The same was true this generation and Microsoft was able to do OK despite the disadvantage.

Look at it this way:

This Gen Advantages:
-------------------------
1) Sony - Early Mover, Marketing, Momentum, 3rd party relations, Japanese support, backwards compatibility, 1st party development
2) Microsoft - Lots o' Money, Best Tech, Xbox Live
3) Nintendo - Price Point, 1st party development, youth market to themselves

Next Gen Advantages:
---------------------------
1) Sony - Marketing, Momentum, 3rd party relations, Japanese support, backwards compatibilty, 1st party development, Best Tech
2) Microsoft - Lots o' Money, Momentum, Halo, 3rd party support
3) Nintendo - 1st party development, youth market to themselves, backwards compatibility

 

[TheGreenGiant]

The next Xbox console will be in a good position to enjoy quick PC ports by virtue of the XNA developer tools as well.

I REALLY don't know if that's a positive or negative thing in the first instance.

 

[cvxfreak]

I suppose for me it's positive. I can't stand using a PC for games (which is why even the Phantom has my attention).

 

[jedimike]

Nintendo's not in the bright and cheery situation you guys make it out to be. They were prematurely forced to drop the price to $99 last year to meet Fiscal Year sales expectations and still were a million consoles short. I remember the N-fans spewing that $99 was the "magic" price point and that they would leave MS in the dust.

So GC sales are falling and there isn't any price drop in sight that will give them a boost. They're already losing an estimated $20 per console and because Nintendo has to be profitable they can't drop the price any further.

3rd party sales are not as good as publishers expected them to be and the perceprion amongst publishers is that only Nintendo games sell well on GC. Publishers have cut back support or eliminated it all together. The GC library is over 100 games less than the Xbox library.

At least they have the Gameboy to fall back on. With no competition there they can keep the prices on software and hardware overinflated... until PSP arrives. In which case, they may have to actually compete in the market... and we all know how good they are at competing.

 

[ge-man]

Next Gen Advantages:
---------------------------
1) Sony - Marketing, Momentum, 3rd party relations, Japanese support, backwards compatibilty, 1st party development, Best Tech
2) Microsoft - Lots o' Money, Momentum, Halo, 3rd party support
3) Nintendo - 1st party development, youth market to themselves, backwards compatibility

It will be interesting to see what effect that backwards compatibility will have next gen. I'm not completely sold on the idea of it being a major purchase point, but I'm not willing to write it off either.

I don't think Nintendo should be counted out for having a niche. They're not as big as the other guys, nor do they have the multimedia background and focus their competitors have. Nintendo's platforms has mostly been vehicles for their own software. As long as they can sell their software they will do fine, and frankly I don't think they will ever come to the point where they can't sell their software. The response to the Zelda trailer this past E3 reminded me of how strong the fanbase is. Some people are downright militant about their affection for the company, and that is a connection that can't be bought or easily taken away.

 

[sonycowboy]

Nintendo's not in the bright and cheery situation you guys make it out to be. They were prematurely forced to drop the price to $99 last year to meet Fiscal Year sales expectations and still were a million consoles short. I remember the N-fans spewing that $99 was the "magic" price point and that they would leave MS in the dust.

So GC sales are falling and there isn't any price drop in sight that will give them a boost. They're already losing an estimated $20 per console and because Nintendo has to be profitable they can't drop the price any further.

3rd party sales are not as good as publishers expected them to be and the perceprion amongst publishers is that only Nintendo games sell well on GC. Publishers have cut back support or eliminated it all together. The GC library is over 100 games less than the Xbox library.

At least they have the Gameboy to fall back on. With no competition there they can keep the prices on software and hardware overinflated... until PSP arrives. In which case, they may have to actually compete in the market... and we all know how good they are at competing.

Jedi,

The problem with using their current situation to forecast the future is that you are relying on Nintendo to screw up next gen as badly as they did this generation. You can certainly expect Sony & MS to fire on all cylinders, but I think Nintendo has too many inherent advantages to squander them yet again. I would consider the N64 to be a moderate success for Nintendo as they made tons of bucks and regularly released great games. This generation, they have not been nearly as consistent. If they just did as well as they did with the N64, they would be a undisputedly clearcut #2.

 

[ge-man]

At least they have the Gameboy to fall back on. With no competition there they can keep the prices on software and hardware overinflated... until PSP arrives. In which case, they may have to actually compete in the market... and we all know how good they are at competing.

I wouldn't be so confident about the PSP. No one has answered the question about software pricing. I expect to pay PS2 software prices for games that are essentially PS2 games. What kind of effect will that have in a market that overlaps with consoles?

 

[SolidSnakex]

"2) Microsoft - Lots o' Money, Momentum, Halo, 3rd party support
3) Nintendo - 1st party development, youth market to themselves, backwards compatibility"

Well unless BC is going to be really important (and I do think it's important, I just don't know if its that important) that's the only new advantage Nintendo has over MS, while MS has several new advantages over Nintendo. That seems to put them in the front I think with Nintendo playing catch up. You go into next gen in the same positions you exit out of this gen imo. At this point it seems like MS is going to come out in 2nd place this gen, Nintendo's going to come out in 3rd place. So that's how it's going to be next gen. Nintendo's the one that's going to be having to overcome MS as they've already overcome Nintendo this gen.

 

[GDGF]

The PSP is going to be an anticlimatic non event IMO. Sony's just done too much wrong for any mesurable level of success (on a GB level, anyway)

 

[SolidSnakex]

The PSP is going to be an anticlimatic non event IMO. Sony's just done too much wrong for any mesurable level of success (on a GB level, anyway)

Keep those fingers crossed hard now.

 

[GDGF]

No need for that. Sony's done all the finger crossing for me

 

[Gchaime]

I've been online for 5 years now and since that time i have read hunderds of 'nintendo-is-doomed'-threads, all of them were basicly the same as this one.

What's hasn't changed either in that timeframe is nintendo's position: they are still profitable, they still make great games, they still sell an assload of games, they still got dozens of hot franchises and they are still around. All nintendohaters can just stop their ''wishful thinking'', nintendo is here to stay.

 

[sonycowboy]

"2) Microsoft - Lots o' Money, Momentum, Halo, 3rd party support
3) Nintendo - 1st party development, youth market to themselves, backwards compatibility"

Well unless BC is going to be really important (and I do think it's important, I just don't know if its that important) that's the only new advantage Nintendo has over MS, while MS has several new advantages over Nintendo. That seems to put them in the front I think with Nintendo playing catch up. You go into next gen in the same positions you exit out of this gen imo. At this point it seems like MS is going to come out in 2nd place this gen, Nintendo's going to come out in 3rd place. So that's how it's going to be next gen. Nintendo's the one that's going to be having to overcome MS as they've already overcome Nintendo this gen.

You missed the two biggest ones.

1) 1st party development. As I said, I think Nintendo has done a poor job with this area this gen vs any of the past generations. Their franchises are gold and they are just sitting on them by taking far too long inbetween iterations and commercial misteps like SMS & Zelda: WW.

2) If Sony has the technical advantage and an online service, what unique does Microsoft have to offer to continue thier momentum?

Halo, money, & [cue crickets]

Where do the hardcore graphics whores and online fans that are Microsoft's core audience go now that M$ is no longer the clear leader in these areas?

 

[sonycowboy]

The PSP is going to be an anticlimatic non event IMO. Sony's just done too much wrong for any mesurable level of success (on a GB level, anyway)

Weak
Sauce

THey've do too much wrong? In which world?

I do agree that the PSP will have a tough time, not because of mistakes by Sony, but because of the fact they're trying to carve out a new market that doesn't exist. It might be a little painful at first, but with the support, the obscene tech, and the marketing I'm pretty confident it will end up doing extremely well.

 

[alejob]

To me, Microsoft is going to have the most difficult path next generation for several reasons. Of course, these reasons are based on current speculation, but hey that's all we've got.

1) They will not have the technology advantage. By far, this was their biggest key this generation. Without it, and if fact, potentially being in 3rd place in the horsepower war will make it difficult to maintain their current fans who clearly want the most powerful system.

2) They will come out first and they will have to face the hype of the other two systems much like the dreamcast. It's very difficult to fight a ghost and people like to wait for more options to show up before they make the "big" decision.

3) Sony will have an Xbox Live "like" service from day 1. Again, it may not be as advanced as Microsoft's, but it will again counter one of their key advantages.

4) Microsoft, as far as consumers go, by far has the weakest 1st party lineup. For casuals you've got Halo and that's it. RSC, PGR, MechAssault, etc may be great games, but as far as sales go, they haven't become huge franchises like Mario, Zelda, Pokemon, Gran Turismo, Twisted Metal, J&D, R&C, SOCOM,etc.

5) Microsoft failed to make an inroads into Japan with the exception of Tecmo. While Japan may not be the "end all be all" of gaming anymore, you cannot simply have a 0% contribution of games like Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid, Resident Evil, Tekken, etc.

I agree, from my perspective it looks like Xenon will be the odd one out. Xenon will be completly different from XBox(the one exception being Xenon/XBox Live), so basically they would be killing the things that made them get their userbase this generation. They will have to convince players to buy their system all over again.

I also think that if Xenon comes out next year it will have bad software. I dont think that EA for example, would spend all the resources needed to create a decent next-gen Madden game only for Xenon when they can just release current-gen versions of the game and make tons of money on that, then wait till the other two consoles are released the following year and make a kickass nextgen Madden2007 for all consoles.

It would take a huge commitment from third parties to make Xenon succesful at launch and I don't see that happening. If MS wants Xenon to be a hit they will have to have a great launch, cause if they don't, what will make people buy an inferior machine instead of the more powerful, better looking PS3 and Revolution consoles?

P.S.
To end up being No1 in this industry you need to win the japanese market, which means getting the japanese developers. I think we would all agree that it's imposible for Microsoft to do that. So basically MS has a much smaller potencial userbase than Nintendo and Sony.

Did that make any sense? Hope so

 

[SolidSnakex]

"1) 1st party development. As I said, I think Nintendo has done a poor job with this area this gen vs any of the past generations. Their franchises are gold and they are just sitting on them by taking far too long inbetween iterations and commercial misteps like SMS & Zelda: WW."

This remains to be seen. We really don't know if they will make up for the first party mistakes they made this gen and even if they did we don't know if that'll have much of an affect on them or their competition overall.

"2) If Sony has the technical advantage and an online service, what unique does Microsoft have to offer to continue thier momentum?"

Lots of Western developer support which has been one of MS' main appeals. They're catering toward a PC market with a console. Sony has a ton of Eastern developer support, Nintendo has themself and MS has alot of Western developer support.

 

[P90]

Its easy to sell a lot of gamecubes when they're so freaking cheap. People buy shit on deals for the sake of getting a deal. Its no mystery.

I think XBox has done leagues for online console gaming, and has offered up a very solid line-up of original games for MS' first outting.

I recognize Nintendos handheld dominance, and the 'gems' on the gamecube, but that only goes so far.

And it is easy to sell alot of PS2's and Xbox's 'cause they have a DVD player. Your logic does not hold up.

Online gaming is for people with limited friends.

Your last statemnt is true. Nintendo needs to buy or merge with Capcom or Namco. Now.

 

[GDGF]

Weak
Sauce

THey've do too much wrong? In which world?

I do agree that the PSP will have a tough time, not because of mistakes by Sony, but because of the fact they're trying to carve out a new market that doesn't exist. It might be a little painful at first, but with the support, the obscene tech, and the marketing I'm pretty confident it will end up doing extremely well.

Don't mind me. I'm the resident NDS fanatic (although I really dont see the PSP doing exceptionally well against the GBA and NDS)

Anyway, don't let me distract you. Handle the idots

 

[Malleymal]

I would just design the new Nintendo to look like the FIRST nintendo... give it different colors... wether black or platinum or gold or even the classic colors... have the flap open and then you can slide the CD in... Fix the controller to look half way understandable, 80 percent of people that decide on purchasing a system worry about how the controller feels, so that should be a high priority while designing...make it look like the old NES or Super NES controllers, but get the analog sticks on their somewhere, and you have yourself some nostalgia....

Add on the next gen neccessities like Online capabilities.. and DVD abilities and let the gameboy connect to it sharpen its resolution...put a hard drive in the thing, nothing big, but something with a decent amount of space..

The system should come with a disc that contains 10 of the top selling first gen Nintendo titles... from Mario 1 to zelda, to Metroid to Mike tyson's Punchout.... offer downloads on N-line (my name for nintendo's online service) so you can immediately download old school games like Contra/Bionic Commando/tecmo bowl and all at a price of 5 bucks.....

It is vital that Nintendo squashes the kiddie label from the beggining.... I say get EA Sports line up on board right away.. From there grab a well know gory first person shooter, and a couple online shoot-em ups like ghost recon/rainbow six/splinter cell type games.... Also get a legit Sports development team.. Scoop up VC or the guys that did inside drive and get a decent sports line that can make someone NEED to get a Nintendo to play... these are all vital in making a console purchase worthwhile...

I know I am reaching but then and only then will Nintendo hold any chance in hell at keeping up with the Big boys....

Thank you for listening to my rant....

K

 

[jarrod]

At least they have the Gameboy to fall back on. With no competition there they can keep the prices on software and hardware overinflated... until PSP arrives. In which case, they may have to actually compete in the market... and we all know how good they are at competing.

GBA alone has outsold all portable CD players combined, all MP3 players combined, all PDAs combined, all PocketPCs combined not to mention the GameBoy brand putting Sega, Atari, NEC, Tiger, Nokia, Bandai & SNK handhelds out to pasture. GBA is hands down the most successful handheld enetrtianment device today. It's outsold iPod by a factor of 18 to 1. Nintendo wasn't just given this market by default or lucked into it by accident, they've really earned it.

XBox is roughly half as sucessful as N64 was and equal to GameCube. It trails PS2 by a larger margin than any secondary console since the 8bit era. WebTV sunk quick, MSN still isn't number one after nearly a decade of spending... looks to me it's more like Microsft having trouble with competitive markets.

 

[Red Dolphin]

I would just design the new Nintendo to look like the FIRST nintendo... give it different colors... wether black or platinum or gold or even the classic colors... have the flap open and then you can slide the CD in... Fix the controller to look half way understandable, 80 percent of people that decide on purchasing a system worry about how the controller feels, so that should be a high priority while designing...make it look like the old NES or Super NES controllers, but get the analog sticks on their somewhere, and you have yourself some nostalgia....

Platinum NES? Brick controller with analogue sticks? YUCK

25 year old games on a next gen console? This is supposed to attract NEW customers?

 

[Redbeard]

I agree, from my perspective it looks like Xenon will be the odd one out. Xenon will be completly different from XBox(the one exception being Xenon/XBox Live), so basically they would be killing the things that made them get their userbase this generation. They will have to convince players to buy their system all over again.

Nonsense. All it will take is the right game/games.

I also think that if Xenon comes out next year it will have bad software. I dont think that EA for example, would spend all the resources needed to create a decent next-gen Madden game only for Xenon when they can just release current-gen versions of the game and make tons of money on that, then wait till the other two consoles are released the following year and make a kickass nextgen Madden2007 for all consoles.

That's not much of an argument. Didn't EA's president claim that MS could be the market leader next-gen? Besides, if anyone's got the resources to create a next-gen game (and get a head start on creating a next-gen cross-platform engine) while still pumping out versions for current systems it's EA.

It would take a huge commitment from third parties to make Xenon succesful at launch and I don't see that happening. If MS wants Xenon to be a hit they will have to have a great launch, cause if they don't what will make people buy an inferior machine instead of the more powerful, better looking PS3 and Revolution consoles?

Because you don't see it doesn't mean it isn't happening. The console hasn't even been announced yet.

 

[Makura]

Look at how Western games have enjoyed a resurgence of global sales this gen, now on par with and surpassing Japanese software. The next Xbox console will be in a good position to enjoy quick PC ports by virtue of the XNA developer tools as well.

Yes, but what if the Japanese economy improves and the balance shifts, what then?

 

[Malleymal]

Platinum NES? Brick controller with analogue sticks? YUCK

25 year old games on a next gen console? This is supposed to attract NEW customers?

Not New Customers..... but RETURN customers....

things come back and people eat it up....

Bell bottoms...
basketball jerseys of players who have been dead for years
hairstyles
music
??video games and systems??

it can work

and the controller doesnt have to be the BRICK, but it cant be that crap that they have used for the N64 and gamecube.... as for the colors, it is an option.... some people like platinum, i dont know why , but they do...

all jokes aside, I think that whoever gets madden out on their system first will get the initial clientel needed to start the next gen war off right....

 

[Spiritreaver]

Who the hell cares who comes on out on top? That's just the fanboys within yourselves coming out. I for one don't want to see ANY of the three competitors do horribly next gen or see Sony not overtake the two even more. The last thing I want is to see one company overtake everything and me being quite forced to settle with what they have to offer regardless of how I like or dislike the system and its library. You guys want this?

Many will be quick to bring up the handheld industry with my post. I'm actually quite happy with Sony trying to present itself to the market, while I have no hope that it will do well. It will offer some sort of second option to the market for those who just don't enjoy the titles on the GB line. Hell, I wish more people had purchased a Wondersean and Bandai had brought it over here. It's a nice system and with support like Bandai themselves and Square, it had a few apps worth buying. IN all honesty I saw it as the only worthy competitor for the GB and still do.

I mean yeesh, can't we all be happy that one company is offering cheap options for gaming for those with a lower budget. One is offer a large library for those who like many of a certain genre. One is offering a strong online and hardware setup along with incredible graphics. Next gen may be a little different, but honestly, I hope none of the three do any worse than they did this gen. Because as a gamer, I will feel quite jipped.

 

[Prine]

MS have this guy

They need to make a game with him init

 

[ge-man]

DarthWufei--You pretty much expressed my opinion. I don't believe in the whole "one format" dream. Competition is good industries--why should video games be different? I don't why people argue so hard about one company dominating the other. Does market position make you're product automatically better or worse?

 

[CrimsonSkies]

I agree that it's between Microsoft and Sony. Nintendo seems to be in a downward spiral on the home console front in regards to market share. The numbers don't lie.

 

[Guileless]

Haven't almost all of the big Nintendo franchises "underperformed" this gen? Underperformed both sales-wise and critically--e.g. Super Mario Sunshine, TWW, and Metroid Prime--not to mention second tier disasters like Star Fox Adventures.

I say this as an ardent Nintendo fan. While I would rank MP as a classic (despite its sales performance) I would not do so with TWW and SMS. They are not in the same league as Mario 64 or OoT. It's been awhile since Nintendo Japan has released absolutely killer software. Double Dash and Melee are nice, but there's a definite been there, done that quality to both games.

I hope Nintendo can reverse this trend with Revolution or maybe even the DS. A first class, new Mario platformer is beyond overdue.

 

[ge-man]

Haven't almost all of the big Nintendo franchises "underperformed" this gen? Underperformed both sales-wise and critically--e.g. Super Mario Sunshine, TWW, and Metroid Prime--not to mention second tier disasters like Star Fox Adventures.

I say this as an ardent Nintendo fan. While I would rank MP as a classic (despite its sales performance) I would not do so with TWW and SMS. They are not in the same league as Mario 64 or OoT. It's been awhile since Nintendo Japan has released absolutely killer software. Double Dash and Melee are nice, but there's a definite been there, done that quality to both games.

I hope Nintendo can reverse this trend with Revolution or maybe even the DS. A first class, new Mario platformer is beyond overdue.

I wouldn't say they have underperformed software wise. Jarrod did a comparison for Zelda recently, showing how OOT was actually an exception to the rule rather than the norm. SMS did not do M64 numbers, but it wasn't a launch title and it didn't offer the kind of fresh experince that Mario 64 was known for.

The hardware hasn't done well, but they can still sell their games.

 

[GDGF]

Double Dash and Melee are nice, but there's a definite been there, done that quality to both games.

This is why the NDS is such a breath of fresh air to developers (and soon gamers) and why the Revolution is sorely needed at this point in time. New ways to play. Brand new ways to play. It's going to be like the first time we picked up our first joystick or control pad again, and that is an encouraging thought.

 

[deadhorse32]

[TROLLING ON]next-gen war is between microsoft and sony .... for the second place[/TROLLING OFF]

[EVIL LAUGHTER ON]HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH[EVIL LAUGHTER OFF]

 

[kaching]

Reducing all to GTA of course don´t work. PS2 had Gran Turismo, Devil May Cry and Onimusha before Xbox and GC. That makes three platinum sellers only in Japan.

When GC and Xbox arrived PS2 was already well stablished. With only "Playstation" or "Sony" name, you can´t do anything. But other thing is that you show that you have content and that the future content is there. If you has already that titles and you show that games like Final fantasy IX are coming, if so, you can use the name "Playstation", because you have proved that you can maintain the quality of the name.

Nobody will buy a "Playstation" based on that name if s not convinced that Sony and the industry can assure that this name already implies the quality gaming you are looking for. Brand names gives advantages, but this is not the car industry, nobody is going to buy a "Sony" like you could buy a "Mercedes". Videogames are about content.

Of course reducing all to GTA doesn't work but you can't say that any system this gen has failed to establish current and future content. If "videogames are about content" as you suggest, then the DC would have been the PS2 of this generation. And the GC and XB, which have each had about 3 years now to establish content, and show they aren't going away quickly like the DC did, would be encroaching more seriously on the PS2 install base. But GC and XB sales numbers have not improved dramatically over time.

Not to mention the defections that have occurred and the franchises that failed to get renewed or remain exclusive. If people were buying "Sony" and "Playstation" because they expected last gen franchises to all return for a PS2 outing in significant and exclusive form, they would have been disabused of that notion early on - the premier Resident Evil experience is on GC this gen, Oddworld on Xbox, if you're a Final Fantasy fan, you can't get by with just the PS2, Crash Bandicoot goes multiplatform, etc. Yet none of this changing of the guard put a dent in PS2 momentum.

So if it really is mostly about content, then it would only be in a very general sense, which should be of as much benefit to the GC and XB by now as it has been for the PS2. But we're not seeing that.

 

[human5892]

Who the hell cares who comes on out on top? That's just the fanboys within yourselves coming out. I for one don't want to see ANY of the three competitors do horribly next gen or see Sony not overtake the two even more. The last thing I want is to see one company overtake everything and me being quite forced to settle with what they have to offer regardless of how I like or dislike the system and its library. You guys want this?

Do I want to only have to buy one console in order to play every single game for that generation? Yes, very much so.

I've said this before, but imagine if you could only play Paramount movies on a Panasonic DVD player. To be able to watch all the current DVDs, you'd have to own three or four other DVD players. Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? But that's what we do with consoles, every generation.

 

[Mr_Furious]

Ummm....ge-man the only thing Nintendo disclosed was an unconventional controller interface iirc. It will still be a set-top box.

And herein lies the problem. This is probably going to be one of Nintendo's biggest problems heading into next gen. What Nintendo continues to ignore is the fact that majority of the video game business is about porting SKUs to more than one platform in the hopes of maximizing profits. Unless this new "unconventional controller" is optional and Nintendo has some other type of standard controller (complimentary to the PS3/X2) then they'll just continue to alienate themselves from publishers further. The same can be said for the DS. I've talked to people developing content on the DS and none seem to really be utilizing the 2nd screen the way Nintendo had envisioned (stat screen). Making touch screen content isn't advantageous to the portable market where publishers also want to release the same game on the PSP (which is going to be the case for far too many publishers).

Nintendo needs to revert back to their roots and get back to developing software that's innovative and stop trying to "fix" the industry that only they see as broken with their gimmicky hardware and peripherals.

 

[Mooreberg]

Nintendo may have the "We don't care" attitude, but it seems to be working for them, if I were Nintendo, I wouldn't want to be combating to be in either Sony's or Microsofts position when it comes to profits (5 and 7-year plans instead of constant profitability). Sure Nintendo would like to be #1 in marketshare and popularity (instead of #2/#3), but I think they'll take being #1 in making money...

You're missing the point. Nintendo isn't competing for a distant second place with Sega or some other company that will buckle under financial pressure. Microsoft is one of, if not the wealthiest corporations on earth (maybe Walmart is worth more, don't know) and they are willing to bleed money every quarter to get the games that people want to play. This means, for the third generation in a row, Nintendo has even fewer users of their home console. This is going to hurt them in the long run, and their monopoly on handhelds certainly isn't going to last forever. Every time a newer and stronger competitor has appeared in the console sector, Nintendo has lost major ground to them. Their top selling first party game in the US is a million units shy of Gran Turismo 3 and Halo. The sequels to those games will be even bigger, and that's before you get into the superior third party support that PS2 and Xbox receive. I don't know how you can spin consistently shrinking user bases as a good thing.

 

[P90]

Of course reducing all to GTA doesn't work but you can't say that any system this gen has failed to establish current and future content. If "videogames are about content" as you suggest, then the DC would have been the PS2 of this generation. And the GC and XB, which have each had about 3 years now to establish content, and show they aren't going away quickly like the DC did, would be encroaching more seriously on the PS2 install base. But GC and XB sales numbers have not improved dramatically over time.

Not to mention the defections that have occurred and the franchises that failed to get renewed or remain exclusive. If people were buying "Sony" and "Playstation" because they expected last gen franchises to all return for a PS2 outing in significant and exclusive form, they would have been disabused of that notion early on - the premier Resident Evil experience is on GC this gen, Oddworld on Xbox, if you're a Final Fantasy fan, you can't get by with just the PS2, Crash Bandicoot goes multiplatform, etc. Yet none of this changing of the guard put a dent in PS2 momentum.

So if it really is mostly about content, then it would only be in a very general sense, which should be of as much benefit to the GC and XB by now as it has been for the PS2. But we're not seeing that.

Sony has the Oriental and Occidental mindshare as well. Nintendo dropped the ball. Sony is running with it and has excellent blocking. Next gen, the PS3 seems destined to rule. It is up to Nintendo to consolidate some "mature" software houses to secure a strong 2nd place. MS' plans, so far, indicate a third place.

 

[GDGF]

Microsoft is one of, if not the wealthiest corporations on earth (maybe Walmart is worth more, don't know) and they are willing to bleed money every quarter to get the games that people want to play

I don't know about that. So far, Microsoft's willingness to bleed money hasn't had a negative effect on Nintendo's ability to make money, and their large cash coffers hasn't gained them one huge third party exclusive yet, whereas Nintendo has Resident Evil 4 and doesn't spend nearly as much. As a matter of fact, they're still making money hand over fist.

I can see why they do the things they do. If I ran a multi billion dollar hardware/software house, I would want to make money too

 

[sonycowboy]

Do I want to only have to buy one console in order to play every single game for that generation? Yes, very much so.

I've said this before, but imagine if you could only play Paramount movies on a Panasonic DVD player. To be able to watch all the current DVDs, you'd have to own three or four other DVD players. Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? But that's what we do with consoles, every generation.

There are some extremely fundamental differences between the movie industry and the videogame industry. The VG industry is still going through a maturation phase and it will be awhile.

Do you believe that the makers of DVD players would be willing to lose hundreds of dollars on each hardware unit sold? And if not, they would never be able to price the hardware reasonably for years until the unit is almost obsolete.

It's a very delicate balance that is currently built. The hardware manufacturers lose money on the hardware (and at some point, just break even) to drive the adoption of the hardware which in turn, drives software purchases (and vice-versa). In exchange, the publishers pay a royalty to the hardware manufacturers for getting a critical mass of users onto a system and marketing said system.

The only area you can truly compare it to is the PC market. Even if it were a standardized platform, which would be a requirement, you have substantial problems. The hardware there is not subsidized and the market is 1/4 the size of the console market. If it were so great, why would EA, Activision, Take-Two, Konami, Microsoft, .... all be putting their games first and foremost onto the consoles?

 

[human5892]

There are some extremely fundamental differences between the movie industry and the videogame industry. The VG industry is still going through a maturation phase and it will be awhile.

Do you believe that the makers of DVD players would be willing to lose hundreds of dollars on each hardware unit sold? And if not, they would never be able to price the hardware reasonably for years until the unit is almost obsolete.

It's a very delicate balance that is currently built. The hardware manufacturers lose money on the hardware (and at some point, just break even) to drive the adoption of the hardware which in turn, drives software purchases (and vice-versa). In exchange, the publishers pay a royalty to the hardware manufacturers for getting a critical mass of users onto a system and marketing said system.

The only area you can truly compare it to is the PC market. Even if it were a standardized platform, which would be a requirement, you have substantial problems. The hardware there is not subsidized and the market is 1/4 the size of the console market. If it were so great, why would EA, Activision, Take-Two, Konami, Microsoft, .... all be putting their games first and foremost onto the consoles?

I agree with you on most (if not all) of these points. But if a one-console world were to become more feasible -- whether by the agreement by the major manufacturers to create a set of standards, or the cheapening/redesigning of console technology so that the hardware can be profitable, or what have you -- I'd be all for it. That's not to say, however, that I believe that all that stands between the present system and standardization is the unwillingness of those involved to do it.

And the PC market is vastly different than a one-console market would be. That's like comparing PC TV tuners to television sets.

 

[Spiritreaver]

Do I want to only have to buy one console in order to play every single game for that generation? Yes, very much so.

I've said this before, but imagine if you could only play Paramount movies on a Panasonic DVD player. To be able to watch all the current DVDs, you'd have to own three or four other DVD players. Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? But that's what we do with consoles, every generation.

But at the same time you're avoiding the topics such as pricing and costs being ruled by one company. Not a single one of the "big three" is perfect. Nor do I think the combination of all three would be perfect. Unless they were all working on the consoles and games themselves. But that's not going to happen.

You see, in this perfect little world this is possible. But what's more likely to happen is someone's going to get bought up. Most likely Nintendo. Sony couldn't even fit the bill for Microsoft, maybe for the Xbox itself, but the otherway around is more likely to happen. But what's going to happen is we're going to see just the games, and that's about it. I doubt the hardware or software will get cheaper.

Choice is far better than limit. I feel that we should be happy that we've got the freedom to choose what we want. Not be forced to get the one thing that exists. Under your argument Nintendo's stronghold on the handheld industry is great and it's just this large utopia of gaming where we can all find whatever we want and prance around like merry little gamers. I don't see that, I can see the justifications for more "edgy" games and the people who like them. There's none of that on the GB line. It does cater to a certain crowd, and I'm sorry to say, if any of the three came out on top for good it would be exactly the same way despite whatever happens to the others in the form of second or third parties. They would have no input whatsoever in the hardware line of that company. It just doesn't work.

 

[human5892]

But at the same time you're avoiding the topics such as pricing and costs being ruled by one company. Not a single one of the "big three" is perfect. Nor do I think the combination of all three would be perfect. Unless they were all working on the consoles and games themselves. But that's not going to happen.

You see, in this perfect little world this is possible. But what's more likely to happen is someone's going to get bought up. Most likely Nintendo. Sony couldn't even fit the bill for Microsoft, maybe for the Xbox itself, but the otherway around is more likely to happen. But what's going to happen is we're going to see just the games, and that's about it. I doubt the hardware or software will get cheaper.

Choice is far better than limit. I feel that we should be happy that we've got the freedom to choose what we want. Not be forced to get the one thing that exists. Under your argument Nintendo's stronghold on the handheld industry is great and it's just this large utopia of gaming where we can all find whatever we want and prance around like merry little gamers. I don't see that, I can see the justifications for more "edgy" games and the people who like them. There's none of that on the GB line. It does cater to a certain crowd, and I'm sorry to say, if any of the three came out on top for good it would be exactly the same way despite whatever happens to the others in the form of second or third parties. They would have no input whatsoever in the hardware line of that company. It just doesn't work.

You're ignoring one of the fundamental caveats of my proposal, which is that standardized hardware would be collaborated on, not created and ruled over by one company. Therefore, your parallels to monopolies -- of Nintendo's or of anyone's -- don't fit.

Under a consortium, we'd only have to buy one machine, but we'd be able to choose any sort of game we wanted to play on it. You still have your freedom of choice, and we all have less hardware to buy, should we want to alter our choices every now and again.