-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
The Revolution begins now - 1up article
- Thread starter Doc Holliday
- Start date
GitarooMan
Member
mj1108 said:
I think his point is that unique, changed gaming experiences can just as easily come from the game itself, not just the controller. The point is that Nintendo is not the only one evolving because of their new controller. The other systems are sure to provide unique gaming experiences as well, so they are not the same old, same old, as many seem to harp on.
Frank the Great
Banned
mckmas8808 said:
GAF represents a very, very, very small portion of gamers.
Newsflash: Nintendo doesn't care about you guys, they care about getting the casual gamers/non gamers who are turned off by gaming on their side.
krypt0nian
Banned
I love how those who aren't interested in new controllers are going to bring gaming to its knees.
<insert powerglove/Xavix example>
Gaming is fine. Revolution is just an odd alternative that will probably be fun but will not save the world because it doesn't need saving.
<insert powerglove/Xavix example>
Gaming is fine. Revolution is just an odd alternative that will probably be fun but will not save the world because it doesn't need saving.
Bluemercury
Member
krypt0nian said:
Like if it needed to be saved you would buy the damn console anyway..... :lol
krypt0nian
Banned
Bluemercury said:
Harharhar....I buy every console...even if its only for Metroid/Zelda/Fire Emblem.
Now what?
Frank the Great
Banned
The only thing that needs saving is Nintendo :lol
I think the reason they made the choice to go different with the Revo is because they cannot compete with Sony and MS on that level, not to save the industry. But of course, they're not gonna come out and say that.
If Nintendo were to release GCN 2, what would have been different? GCN was a complete failure, and following the same path would have been retarded for Nintendo.
With the Rev, Nintendo is offering something different, a reason for people to try it out and give it a chance, so they don't get raped by the MS/Sony marketing and hype machine again.
I'm glad that Nintendo chose the path that happens to offer a shitload of potential for innovative gameplay, but honestly they did it for themselves more than the industry.
Nintendo HAS to go down this road to survive.
That said, Revo WILL help the industry. More choices=happier consumers=more consumers=industry growth. And in the future, I guarantee every controller will have some form of motion detection ;-)
The path Nintendo has taken makes so much sense that I don't see why people are going against it.
I think the reason they made the choice to go different with the Revo is because they cannot compete with Sony and MS on that level, not to save the industry. But of course, they're not gonna come out and say that.
If Nintendo were to release GCN 2, what would have been different? GCN was a complete failure, and following the same path would have been retarded for Nintendo.
With the Rev, Nintendo is offering something different, a reason for people to try it out and give it a chance, so they don't get raped by the MS/Sony marketing and hype machine again.
I'm glad that Nintendo chose the path that happens to offer a shitload of potential for innovative gameplay, but honestly they did it for themselves more than the industry.
Nintendo HAS to go down this road to survive.
That said, Revo WILL help the industry. More choices=happier consumers=more consumers=industry growth. And in the future, I guarantee every controller will have some form of motion detection ;-)
The path Nintendo has taken makes so much sense that I don't see why people are going against it.
krypt0nian
Banned
Francois the Great said:
I agree 1000% with this post.
evilromero
Member
Oops! Tee hee hee. Try again little one.Francois the Great said:
krypt0nian
Banned
evilromero said:
Let me guess....the profits? Nintendo made a profit? Wow.
In terms of the gaming public, it was not a roaring success. Neither was the xbox.
The mindshare Nintendo lost alone by the ridiculous "kiddy" arguement was fairly large.
krypt0nian
Banned
Speevy said:
I was trying to be nice so the "troll!" idiots would actually read it. Gamecube made a profit, xbox did not. Xbox gained excellent mindshare, Gamecube did not.
Overall its a wash. The effects will be seen this coming gen I'd say.
norinrad21
Banned
Please help me understand.......
MS wasted 4 billion,
sony likely wasted a few millions as well.
Nintendo with the GC made almost a billion in profits, again, please help me understand because if being a failure means i stand to make millions even billions of dollars then God please make me a failure
The Bookerman
Member
Can anybody bring up Nintendo and Microsoft's(for Xbox) R&D numbers?
I thought they were pretty much the same for Xbox 360 and Revolution?
I thought they were pretty much the same for Xbox 360 and Revolution?
clearacell
Member
OG_Original Gamer said:
I could not agree more.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Speevy said:
yeah. MS played the media very well.
krypt0nian
Banned
norinrad21 said:
Yes yes they made an efficient console. They also gained the "kiddy crap" title and sunk in overall mindshare. Gratz! They made cash. They also because a non-issue in gaming for many that once deservedly held them in high regard.
I'd say that would ring up as faiure if scanned.
norinrad21
Banned
Speevy said:
how is that bad? All Nintendo did was get rid of trash 3rd parties and useless 2nd parties.ie Rare and Dennis Dyack.
Rev will have all the big 3rd parties and some independent developers coming through the Q-fund.
Frank the Great
Banned
I can't believe people are still telling themselves that the GCN was successful :lol
krypt0nian
Banned
norinrad21 said:
Delusional...phone call on line 5....delusional....line 5...
gamergirly
Member
Francois the Great said:
If you dont think that Nintendo could compete on the same level that MS & Sony are putting out(as in the machine power ego battle), then you have something wrong with your ideology. Nintendo can flip their franchises(i.e Wind Waker to Twilight Princess)in a snap of the finger and offer major cash to big companies just like their competitors. MINDBLOW away analysts and meat hungry skeptics if need be.
Billions of lost dollars behind, a 2 to 3 million fanbase advantage over one of your competitors, and the same level mindshare is hardly "intelligent" as far as they and their longevity is concerned.
Their bottom line is what they've always been about. How much money they are going to earn at the end of the day, and if they can revive dying sectors of the industry(JAPAN) along the way, then the "different is better" and "cater to the casuals" campaign works. Losing 1/3 of their value to satisify critics and fanboys of other companies doesnt IMPROVE their bottom line. So, they chose an alternative route.
It's the math battle they are in, not the ego one.
PhoenixDark
Banned
GitarooMan said:
I totally agree. The Revolution seems to be directly aimed at the Japanese market, while Nintendo continues to dismiss sales trends in the US. The game industry is bigger now than it has ever been, and I see no reason why it won't get even bigger in the next generation as technology advances. In the future gamers will no doubt grow tired of GTA and Halo, for instance, but by then they'll be clamoring for Gears of War 3 and whatever other big sequel is on the horizon; the US market has always been like that.
To tell the truth, I wouldn't be suprised at all if the Revolution wound up taking out the PS3 in Japan. Japan's market is totally different than ours, and they have always been into the quirky games that would have no chance of success in the US; Brain Training is an example of this imo. I tend to believe that the Revolution will have a tough time in the states as well as Europe.
Okay, I see what the whole arguement is about. Let me straighten things out.
Nintendo fanboys are arguing that the Revolution controller will be the reason why it is going to be the most popular system next-gen, because this industry needs change, and the controller is the genesis of the "revolution."
Message to Nintendo fanboys: Shut up already.
Sony and Xbox supporters are saying that the PS2 and Xbox business models are working great, and there shouldn't be any reason why anyone needs to change it. If it ain't broke, why fix it, right?
Message to Sony and Xbox supporters: Shut up already.
The way I see it, there is already a disconnect on how the next-gen systems are being compared. The only two systems we can really argue over and compare directly are the PS3 and Xbox 360. Why? They're pretty much the same system, catered toward the same group of people that will have the same type of games. I'm not saying this is a good or bad thing, all I'm saying is that is what's happening.
Everyone on GAF and in Nintendo knows that Nintendo can no longer directly compete with Sony or Microsoft in the console arena. If Nintendo tried to make a new system that lined up in the next-gen in the same way the GC lines up with the PS2 or XBox, Nintendo would still see success, but ultimately be in the same position in five years that they are in right now.
Whether you like it or not, the comparison of DS vs. PSP to Revolution vs. PS3/360 is 100% valid. Yes, the DS is a handheld and the Revolution is a console. At this stage of technology, when handheld games are starting to look like console games, is there really that much of a difference anymore? Hell, the PSP is a portable PS2 and the DS is a portable N64. (If you want to extend this argument, the GBA is a portable SNES, and a lot of games on all three of the handheld systems (PSP in particular) have come from the console counterparts.)
Everyone here knows that people were saying around DS pre-launch that the DS touch screen was just a gimmick and the PSP would clean house. Everyone here also knows that it's pretty much the other way around now that the DS games are really starting to come and it goes online starting next month. Now all of a sudden, people are saying that we don't know who will win out in the handheld wars, and we should wait a few years to see how things really play out.
Yet, people are quick to dismiss Revolution as an instant loser against Sony and MS; the controller is just a gimmick, and the PS3 and Xbox 360 will clean house. Why doesn't the Revolution get that "we'll really see in a couple of years" grace period that the Nintendo DS gets now that the Sony crowd is done with the PSP honeymoon? Two screen/touch screen gameplay is something none of us knew we wanted, and after Nintendo delivered it we were all very grateful for it. Did we need it before the DS? Nope, we had the GBA. Do we need it now, even after it's arrived? Not really (Castlevania DS would still be as good without the touch screen stuff), but everyone can agree we're better off with it.
So, here are some questions I propose to all GAFers:
- Do we need a console like the Revolution in order to enjoy games right now? Why does it matter either way?
- After its release, are we going to need the Revolution controller in order to enjoy games? Again, why does it matter?
- Will we be better off with or without the controller in the end?
Instead of continuing your pointless bickering and general stupidity towards the game industry, try thinking about those questions instead, instead of directly comparing the three systems.
If you really knew any better, you would know that there really isn't a comparison.
Nintendo fanboys are arguing that the Revolution controller will be the reason why it is going to be the most popular system next-gen, because this industry needs change, and the controller is the genesis of the "revolution."
Message to Nintendo fanboys: Shut up already.
Sony and Xbox supporters are saying that the PS2 and Xbox business models are working great, and there shouldn't be any reason why anyone needs to change it. If it ain't broke, why fix it, right?
Message to Sony and Xbox supporters: Shut up already.
The way I see it, there is already a disconnect on how the next-gen systems are being compared. The only two systems we can really argue over and compare directly are the PS3 and Xbox 360. Why? They're pretty much the same system, catered toward the same group of people that will have the same type of games. I'm not saying this is a good or bad thing, all I'm saying is that is what's happening.
Everyone on GAF and in Nintendo knows that Nintendo can no longer directly compete with Sony or Microsoft in the console arena. If Nintendo tried to make a new system that lined up in the next-gen in the same way the GC lines up with the PS2 or XBox, Nintendo would still see success, but ultimately be in the same position in five years that they are in right now.
Whether you like it or not, the comparison of DS vs. PSP to Revolution vs. PS3/360 is 100% valid. Yes, the DS is a handheld and the Revolution is a console. At this stage of technology, when handheld games are starting to look like console games, is there really that much of a difference anymore? Hell, the PSP is a portable PS2 and the DS is a portable N64. (If you want to extend this argument, the GBA is a portable SNES, and a lot of games on all three of the handheld systems (PSP in particular) have come from the console counterparts.)
Everyone here knows that people were saying around DS pre-launch that the DS touch screen was just a gimmick and the PSP would clean house. Everyone here also knows that it's pretty much the other way around now that the DS games are really starting to come and it goes online starting next month. Now all of a sudden, people are saying that we don't know who will win out in the handheld wars, and we should wait a few years to see how things really play out.
Yet, people are quick to dismiss Revolution as an instant loser against Sony and MS; the controller is just a gimmick, and the PS3 and Xbox 360 will clean house. Why doesn't the Revolution get that "we'll really see in a couple of years" grace period that the Nintendo DS gets now that the Sony crowd is done with the PSP honeymoon? Two screen/touch screen gameplay is something none of us knew we wanted, and after Nintendo delivered it we were all very grateful for it. Did we need it before the DS? Nope, we had the GBA. Do we need it now, even after it's arrived? Not really (Castlevania DS would still be as good without the touch screen stuff), but everyone can agree we're better off with it.
So, here are some questions I propose to all GAFers:
- Do we need a console like the Revolution in order to enjoy games right now? Why does it matter either way?
- After its release, are we going to need the Revolution controller in order to enjoy games? Again, why does it matter?
- Will we be better off with or without the controller in the end?
Instead of continuing your pointless bickering and general stupidity towards the game industry, try thinking about those questions instead, instead of directly comparing the three systems.
If you really knew any better, you would know that there really isn't a comparison.
OG_Original Gamer
Member
Francois the Great said:
No, its Nintendo being Nintendo. (N64 controller) You can hold three different ways.
Spastic Colon
Member
norinrad21 said:
Huh?
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Speevy said:
not really true. i think its just that western devs are more vocal when the step back support or drop it completely..
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
mj1108 said:
black people loot, white people find! the truth is out!
Frankfurter
Member
Speevy said:
Don't forget to put a "in the USA" into that sentence.
Neutron Night
Banned
WTF is this garbage? Nintendo has lost it. I can handle modern controllers just fine, thank you. I could care less about what "nongamers" can use. If I was a "nongamer", I WOULDN'T FUCKING BE PLAYING GAMES. The fact that I play games makes me a gamer. FUCKING AMAZING CONCEPT.
As that article stated, "different" controller concepts have been done many times before, and people abandoned them because they sucked. This "new" controller is merely an evolution of those concepts. Fine for party games I'm sure, but the tought of having to physically wave my hand around everytime I want something to happen onscreen makes me ill. If I wanted exercise, I'd go outside. Besides, I mainly prefer mentally-oriented games at this point anyway.
Wrong. I'm not going to "drive this industry down the gutter" because I regularly buy games. It's whiners such as yourself who expect developers to fix what isn't broken that are the real threat. I expect constant improvment as the techology allows, and that's exactly what we get. Wide-open games like GTA weren't possible until the current generation of consoles. The new systems will allow even greater depth and breadth of experience and immersion due to their increased power - say a game like Oblivion, which is only possible with the greater memory of next-gen consoles.
No. People wouldn't play that game, because it would suck. The immersion that comes with the real-world setting would be gone, and it would become an exercise in abstract wierdness. Would people have liked LOTR as much if it were made with Muppets and called Kermit's Big Super Ring Adventure? Of course not. Because they're not retards (at least, some of them aren't).
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Neutron Night said:
calm down dude. its just PR speak.
Yellow bell pepper included with purchase. :lolThe Take Out Bandit said:The Iron Chef would never work as a game!
I'd have to buy a Revolution and a smooth ass Chairman Kaga sequin emblazoned suit, with cape, and get my hair elegantly styled. Then I'd stand in front of my television alternatingly smirking and shouting "Allez cuisine!".
Frankfurter
Member
Speevy said:
Probably you have never heard anything from Europe concerning Xbox
Of course I can't speak for the whole Europe, but atleast where I live the mass market mostly knows the Xbox as this big black thing and then goes out and buys a PS2.
I think what you describe is apathy, which can be corrected with time and good marketing. Remember, the Xbox did outsell the Gamecube in Europe. This says so much more about the market's opinion of Nintendo (which has never, ever given Nintendo a European console market win, even during the NES days).
The point is that while the numbers are similar, the Xbox brand is the one on the way up in Europe, which is why you can consider the console a success. In Japan on the other hand, they just don't seem to like the Xbox.
Looking at this thread... god, talk about not being able to see the forest for the trees.
The Revolution controller is new, interesting and looks fun. I don't give a shit whether we need a new method of gaming, or the whether the traditional controller is complex or ANYTHING like that. This ISN'T about that. This is about differentation and a new take on an existing idea.
It's new, interesting and looks fun and that's all there is to it. Enough of this "but are the old controllers are/aren't uneccessarily complex" or "gaming in its current form is/isn't dying". IT'S IRRELEVANT AND STUPID.
The Revolution controller is new, interesting and looks fun. I don't give a shit whether we need a new method of gaming, or the whether the traditional controller is complex or ANYTHING like that. This ISN'T about that. This is about differentation and a new take on an existing idea.
It's new, interesting and looks fun and that's all there is to it. Enough of this "but are the old controllers are/aren't uneccessarily complex" or "gaming in its current form is/isn't dying". IT'S IRRELEVANT AND STUPID.
krypt0nian
Banned
methodman said:
FUCK a non-gamer. They can play "watch tv" or "read book" just fine.