-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Some Revolution talk from Nintendo
- Thread starter Redbeard
- Start date
Zerodoppler
Member
If only Nintendo would get on the PS3-train instead of developing a new console of their own. That way they could use the hardware R&D money and pour them into expanding their software library. Their games would probably sell quite a bit better due to the larger audience, but if not they could always charge an extra $5-10 for them. I sure wouldn't mind paying a bit more since it would probably balance out from not having to get another console plus controllers and memory cards.
Spazbiohaz
Member
You mentions Super Mario 64, have you played Feel The Magic? This game uses the Voice Mic, and Touch as well as both screens. This game blew me away in innovation, yelling at a game character was funny, and the variations of touch support was great (let alone no button presses are used, only touch screen support). I feel that it is the only game that showed innovation, and to see more of this type of gameplay is welcomed.
Connectivity was a big hit IMO, and now with the PSP and USB support Sony will continue the connectivity innovation. This will begin with GT4 PSP and how it works with GT4 PS2.
Dual Screen you are right, Feel the Magic is a snack but waiting is over. Now it is wanting more. Voice in MP6 I'll give you that one; I have yet to play it.
Nintendo has begun this! The DS comes bundled with a game for the most part. DS has a huge push for Developer support. Currently the DS is currently 1,895 dollars for the Dev kit, this is the cheapest price point on the market. GBA Dev kits run about 6,000 dollars. They are very serious about the DS and want to change how games play. Licensing costs are at a reasonable cost and are cheaper then the norm. So Nintendo has realized there fault and have complied with your rant.
If they do this they will be the same with no hope for innovation. Already the PS3 and Xenon are almost identical. We need some thing new, granted it should have some likeness making it the Norm has never been the Nintendo way.
If you check the IGN head-to-Head features, GameCube are usually number two with Xbox as number 2. I doubt that anyone would say PS2 is a graphic driven system. Now Beta looked better then VHS but VHS was bought more so the install base drove it. It is with the PS2 56 Million PS2 sure beat 9 Million Xboxes or 11 Million NGC's. So I disagree with Steven Kent on a numbers basis.
Not to bring up old shit...But, I think this statement was used time and time again when GameCube was about to be released. I feel that a 100 Century Company with a huge support by the Gambling seen is able to take a gamble. Sega was Sega nothing more, they blew it and now they make poor 3rd party games (Cry's I still love you SEGA).
I second this. Mac OSX ownz XP (Hides from PC gamers, Throws the WoW runs better on Mac sucker Punch!)
SpoonyBard
Banned
Spazbiohaz said:
Bit offtopic, but Beta had 100% marketshare before VHS was released. VHS won because it was much better system than the old Beta.
SpoonyBard
Banned
Jotaro said:
No, that's not true at all. Beta had shitty one hour tapes because Sony wanted them to look nice and small. When VHS came with 3 hour tapes (2 hours for NTSC?) nobody wanted Beta anymore.
edit: fixed the tape lenght
D
Deleted member 1235
Unconfirmed Member
SpoonyBard said:
I heard that porn was really a large factor in VHS movement. how could it not be? they didn't even have the internet.
SpoonyBard
Banned
Here's a longer article about the VHS vs. Beta urban legend:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/comment/story/0,12449,881780,00.html
It doesn't mention the porn issue, but I'm pretty sure there was porn titles available for Beta also.
"Later I found out that Betamax had owned the market, but lost it because Sony got one simple decision wrong. It chose to make smaller, neater tapes that lasted for an hour, whereas the VHS manufacturers used basically the same technology with a bulkier tape that lasted two hours. Instead of poring over the sound and picture quality, reviewers could simply have taken the systems home. Their spouses/children/grandparents and everybody else would quickly have told them the truth. "We're going out tonight and I want to record a movie. That Betamax tape is useless: it isn't long enough. Get rid of it."
Betamax was the first successful consumer video format, and at one time it had close to 100% of the market. All of the video machines in use and all of the pre-recorded movies were Betamax. It had a de facto monopoly, and an element of lock-in (because of tape incompatibilities). It lost because, at the time, it could not do what consumers wanted: record a whole movie unattended. And although Betamax playing times were extended, they never caught up with VHS."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/comment/story/0,12449,881780,00.html
It doesn't mention the porn issue, but I'm pretty sure there was porn titles available for Beta also.
"Later I found out that Betamax had owned the market, but lost it because Sony got one simple decision wrong. It chose to make smaller, neater tapes that lasted for an hour, whereas the VHS manufacturers used basically the same technology with a bulkier tape that lasted two hours. Instead of poring over the sound and picture quality, reviewers could simply have taken the systems home. Their spouses/children/grandparents and everybody else would quickly have told them the truth. "We're going out tonight and I want to record a movie. That Betamax tape is useless: it isn't long enough. Get rid of it."
Betamax was the first successful consumer video format, and at one time it had close to 100% of the market. All of the video machines in use and all of the pre-recorded movies were Betamax. It had a de facto monopoly, and an element of lock-in (because of tape incompatibilities). It lost because, at the time, it could not do what consumers wanted: record a whole movie unattended. And although Betamax playing times were extended, they never caught up with VHS."
SpoonyBard
Banned
A post from an another forum:
"It's really an urban legend that porn killed Beta.
By 1978 beta had less than 20% of the VCR market. Back then very litle porn was on the market on VHS, most was still on super 8 Cine film. The pornographers chose VHS to put out their product because that is what the major studios were doing."
http://discussions.bbcamerica.com/thread.jspa?threadID=30397&tstart=15
"It's really an urban legend that porn killed Beta.
By 1978 beta had less than 20% of the VCR market. Back then very litle porn was on the market on VHS, most was still on super 8 Cine film. The pornographers chose VHS to put out their product because that is what the major studios were doing."
http://discussions.bbcamerica.com/thread.jspa?threadID=30397&tstart=15
As a Nintendo fan, they sure are not getting me hyped. And every time I read a developer interview it is always Xbox 2 / PS3. Or the PS3's tech is soooo powerful. *sigh* Where the fuck is Revolution when they are talking about next-gen. Then the media (online and print) are giving negative vibe to the public, thus affecting mind share.
I just can't get over the mindset of some people here. Maybe it's because of the composition of forum members, but people act like the console industry is a popularity contest ala high school. Well, it's not.
The bottom-line is making money. It doesn't matter, at all, how you make this money. If your market share sucks -- doesn't matter. If your products are for a niche market -- doesn't matter. To continue the comparison of others, look at Apple. Tiny market share, but they make sure to profit on everything -- just like Nintendo.
If Sony and MS want to take losses on hardware -- fine. They make it up in volume. Nintendo's strategy for making money is different, and does not require the volume that MS' and Sony's strategies do.
As for people screaming about Nintendo not being able to survive a failure, you're wrong. They have a fuckton -- yes, a fuckton -- of cash in the bank as well as other assets. Nintendo is much larger than Sega was and has the ability to stay in the business pretty much as long as they want because of their other sources of revenue outside the console market (just like Sony and MS).
The bottom-line is making money. It doesn't matter, at all, how you make this money. If your market share sucks -- doesn't matter. If your products are for a niche market -- doesn't matter. To continue the comparison of others, look at Apple. Tiny market share, but they make sure to profit on everything -- just like Nintendo.
If Sony and MS want to take losses on hardware -- fine. They make it up in volume. Nintendo's strategy for making money is different, and does not require the volume that MS' and Sony's strategies do.
As for people screaming about Nintendo not being able to survive a failure, you're wrong. They have a fuckton -- yes, a fuckton -- of cash in the bank as well as other assets. Nintendo is much larger than Sega was and has the ability to stay in the business pretty much as long as they want because of their other sources of revenue outside the console market (just like Sony and MS).
Operations
Member
Bishman said:
I don't think Nintendo will pursue third party support at all with the Revolution, thus the omission from developers when talking next gen.
Gaia Theory
Member
Or... maybe, just maybe, they have no idea what Nintendo is working on and are thus, waiting to say something when they know something. Maybe some of them have even signed NDAs. Who knows, but your thought is false me thinks.Operations said:
Look at Nintendo DS. I think they put that together *after* PSP was announced and yet it got support. Back when Nintendo DS was just a code name and before it was officially said what the system would feature not hardly ANY developers talked about it, or the games they were making for it.
I think things will be hush hush again until Revolution is officially unveiled. At the same time though I think alot of developers will consider PS3 (and Xenon since it's basically the same formula) their "main" platform. And again...I think there will eventually be a point where developers become curious about expirimenting with Revolution just as they're starting to for Nintendo DS. And if Nintendo does with Revolution what they've done with Nintendo DS (cheaper developement tools, cheaper kits, lower licencing fee's and a nourturing environment for new ideas) then I think support will follow despite the competition being the "main" consoles!
I think things will be hush hush again until Revolution is officially unveiled. At the same time though I think alot of developers will consider PS3 (and Xenon since it's basically the same formula) their "main" platform. And again...I think there will eventually be a point where developers become curious about expirimenting with Revolution just as they're starting to for Nintendo DS. And if Nintendo does with Revolution what they've done with Nintendo DS (cheaper developement tools, cheaper kits, lower licencing fee's and a nourturing environment for new ideas) then I think support will follow despite the competition being the "main" consoles!
Krowley said:
I think they knew of it and maybe they had some idea of the specifications, but I don't think until like a couple of months before E3 2004 they knew what kind of graphics it could push nor it's unique features. Nintendo made that video segmant speaking with developers/publishers/company heads about the DS being the "developers system" before Reggie actually pulled it out of his pocket and a couple of them spoke about how "Nitro" was just presented to them like a week before they were interviewed for said video. To me that suggests that Nintendo DS and it's support was put together fairly quickly. Nintendo has always delayed their hardware launches...until DS...and really that was launched only a couple of months after it was unveiled. They could do the same with Revolution, and thusly Revolution's industry support could leap just as Nintendo DS's did (despite PSP already proclaimed the GameBoy-killer by most). Not that I'm expected that anyone's gonna leave Sony for the new Nintendo or anything, just that I think they'll have better support than GCN due to sheer developer curiosity and experimenting.
Date of Lies
Banned
Nintendo should show just a bit more confidence in their PR
other than that, WAIT UNTIL E3
other than that, WAIT UNTIL E3
ImNotLikeThem
Member
this is actually kinda what i was thinking. if its too similar to the other two consoles, but with some "wierd" additions, it could be ignored in favor of the mainstream again. But if it has something significantly different, enough to warrant games created specifically for its features, then that would be something to look for. and wouldn't people just about shit themselves if they announced its going to be released in november 2005.DrGAKMAN said:
gamergirly
Member
DrGAKMAN said:
Well, the thing is that Revolution should establish itself to be "different" than the competition. What will be the main consoles and whose games reign supreme is all theoretical......
JoshuaJSlone
Member
As people love to point out, many Revolution threads are created with almost nil information. However, we must consider this bit from the interview that began this thread:ImNotLikeThem said:
Unless he's pulling a total bluff there, that doesn't sound much like a 2005 launch.
JoshuaJSlone said:
Tell me about it. I actually sat down and for fun decided to write about an idea of Revolution. I'm debating where I should make a thread or just post it here. It is about 1000 words long but I definately got into it. Not too far fetched either and seems like it can be an outcome.
EDIT: It is kind of sort of technical. I uploaded it to my server for anyone that wants to read. Don't know if I should post or if I should post it where? That or I'm probably maybe a just a bit shy about it.
gamergirly said:
I'm not too sure what you mean, but I'm under the belief that if Revolution is what Nintendo wants it to be then 3RD parties will follow. The NES was the last time Nintendo actually attracted 3RD parties to come to them...how? By creating a large userbase for thier platform pretty much ON THIER OWN. DK, Mario Bros., SMBros., Zelda 1 & 2, Metroid, Kid Icarus and Nintendo's own line of sports games on top of other smaller titles all released within the first year and a half of the NES's life and around the same time and definatly after the 3RD parties just followed. Nintendo needs to do something similar with Revolution to create not only an interest, but also a large userbase ON THIER OWN so that 3RD parties won't have an excuse not to follow. They'll go where the money is being made.
Look at what the current situation is too...Nintendo makes games that are weird/quirky, colorful/kiddy, and focus on fun/multiplayer...so what do 3RD parties make on GCN...the same! Nintendo needs more mature stuff, online stuff, sports stuff and other genre's they lack in so that 3RD parties will follow thier lead. Nintendo can't rely on 3RD parties to "fill in the gaps" in their own lineup...they need to be as productive/innovative as they were back durring the first 2 years of the NES and I think Revolution being a "different" kind of system will sorta force them to rely on themselves initially hopefully putting them back in that state.
AndoCalrissian
Member
marsomega said:Tell me about it. I actually sat down and for fun decided to write about an idea of Revolution. I'm debating where I should make a thread or just post it here. It is about 1000 words long but I definately got into it. Not too far fetched either and seems like it can be an outcome.
EDIT: It is kind of sort of technical. I uploaded it to my server for anyone that wants to read. Don't know if I should post or if I should post it where? That or I'm probably maybe a just a bit shy about it.
I'd love to read it.
Warm Machine
Member
Guys, Nintendo has made traditional video games for the last 25 + years. Its unlikely that they are going to suddenly completely change tack and bet the farm to do something completely whacked out.
The Revolution will likely be as much of an evolution and paradigm shift as adding an analogue stick or a rumble pack to a regular control pad.
The Revolution will likely be as much of an evolution and paradigm shift as adding an analogue stick or a rumble pack to a regular control pad.
AndoCalrissian said:
I had fun with it, and someone else liked it. Maybe too much fun.
http://www.mars-space.com/misc/rev.html
Enjoy.
Operations
Member
I think that's precisely the problem, many fear it's going to feature useless gimmicks that only Nintendo sees as revolutionary, most likely at the expense of state of the art graphics and sound. If the DS is indeed a hint of their so called innovation, then definitely there's a reason to be worried about.Warm Machine said:
ThongyDonk
Banned
does anyone remember Iwata saying about the DS.
"If only 10% of the people like it, i'll be pleased"
Well maybe Nintendo is just taking a more optimistic approach, a new Nintendo, playing down your hopes, and hitting you with something you didn't expect.
I also feel the new console will aim to please the american market, and be VERY powerful
"If only 10% of the people like it, i'll be pleased"
Well maybe Nintendo is just taking a more optimistic approach, a new Nintendo, playing down your hopes, and hitting you with something you didn't expect.
I also feel the new console will aim to please the american market, and be VERY powerful
ThongyDonk said:
I sorta agree with the whole lowered expectations then surprize 'em strategy. Look at the new Zelda...not too many people expected that, many thought the next Zelda would've been a Wind Waker deal. And Mr. Iwata did say that he only expected a couple of people to be excited about DS when that was unvieled...and then everyone freakin' cheered instead. Then he goes on to say that technical spec's really don't matter and people instantly assume that Revolution will be a GAMECUBE+ with some gimmicky features...they'll be surprized to find out that it's actually on par with the power of their next generation competitors I'm sure.