-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
The Revolution begins now - 1up article
- Thread starter Doc Holliday
- Start date
krypt0nian
Banned
jman2050 said:
These threads are over everytime anyone suggests catering to non-gamers, or suggests that traditional gaming is somehow inferior to the Revolution style gaming.
That's when they are over.
Neutron Night
Banned
methodman said:
No. Morrowind doesn't have any of the "radiant AI" stuff that makes Oblivion sound so amazing. Assuming it actually does what they're talking about.
"Nongamers"? They've have 25 fucking years to start playing games. If they didn't get it by now, then fuck them. They can read Wind in the Willows or play marbles or dissect cats or worship Satan or whatever it is that "nongamers" do. I'll be playing games, thanks.
ThunderEmperor
Banned
Y2Kevbug11 said:
let face it, rare has lots it, look at the two games the made for this gen, a crappy star fox anda remake of conker with pretty graphics. How did it turn out in sales poor for both. also as with proof with PDZ, rare is a compnay you have to babysit forever before the come up with something good.
silicon knights, eternal darkness was good but it ended there, and dyack talks big. haven't seem them deliever yet.
Francois the Great said:
They made a billion dollars in profit, how much more money did they need to make to be considered a success? Oh, let me guess, negative 4 billion?
The GCN wasn't as successful as the N64, or SNES or NES, that's true but it was still a success. They didn't lose money, they made money. They sold close to 20 million GCNs, that's not a small number.
Let me give you some business advice, when you form a company, one of your goals is to MAKE money, not blow it all in the air and say "See, we sold 30 million units but we're 4 billion in the hole".
As for market penetration, that's BS. Sure the xbox made a name for itself but the fact that the X360 has retarded backward compatibility and forces people to pretty much start from scratch defeats the purpose.
GitarooMan
Member
koam said:
Just curious, was it a billion dollars on GCN alone or with the handhelds? Pretty good either way.
OG_Original Gamer
Member
Y2Kevbug11 said:
There's gameplay shots, vids and impressions.
PhoenixDark
Banned
How long will Nintendo's profits continue to rise if their marketshare continues to fall? Not very long. At the end of the PSX/N64 era, Nintendo had around 30% of the market. This gen, the Xbox cut that marketshare in half.
That's not a good sign for the future at all.
That's not a good sign for the future at all.
Warm Machine
Member
I really want to see demographics of "brain training" games for DS and who is really buying them. I really think it is just the same people who buy games anyway and not a new market. If there is an increase in people who wouldn't otherwise buy a game I wouldn't doubt that the increase is a single digit percentile at best.
Edit: There some of it is ^ Now how many of the people who bought it have never bought a game before until now?
Edit: There some of it is ^ Now how many of the people who bought it have never bought a game before until now?
Sathsquatch
Member
I think the main reason that people hate Nintendo and their fans is because the pro-Nintendo rhetoric is so ridiculous. Nintendo and their fans act as if they know what is good for gaming and no one else does. They have some monolithic view on what games should and should not be and complain when games that do not follow that paradigm succeed. Some Nintendo fans will never accept that GTA, Halo, military shooters, or mainstream games in general should succeed. They even argue that losing developers and having fewer games is somehow a good thing simply because they think all other game developers pale in comparison to Nintendo. That kind of unwarranted arrogance invites criticism.
I used to be a huge Nintendo fan, and I still like Nintendo games, but diehard Nintendo fans are just obnoxious. The industry doesn't need Nintendo to save it. Nintendo does not have a monopoly on creativity and good game design. The controller is interesting, but they had better show some games for it before anyone gets too excited.
I used to be a huge Nintendo fan, and I still like Nintendo games, but diehard Nintendo fans are just obnoxious. The industry doesn't need Nintendo to save it. Nintendo does not have a monopoly on creativity and good game design. The controller is interesting, but they had better show some games for it before anyone gets too excited.
krypt0nian said:
Nah, those people are just a tad presumptuous. The non-gamers thing is untested, though the DS seems favorable in that direction. As for traditional gaming somehow being inferior, we don't know that, nor will we know that until actual games come out. Regardless, both those issues are irrelevent when talking about the viability of Nintendo's input method.
gamergirly
Member
Sathsquatch said:
So what is the main reason that people hate Microsoft and their fans or Sony and their fans? Explain one, explain all.
PhoenixDark said:
This is an excellent point. I won't discuss handhelds because when you're at almost 100%, there's nowhere but down that you can go when more competition comes in, especially when its a company like Sony.
The beauty of consoles is that a company is successful for 5 years, after that, the next generation starts and everyone is back at zero.
Not counting pre-orders, how many X360s, Revs and PS3s are out there? Zero. Everyone will enter next generation and try to get their hands on as much of the market as possible. Seeing as how Nintendo's marketshare have dropped with every generation, if they entered with the same mindset as Sony and MS, they'd turn be out of the console business.
If they want to have a lower end console to make profit, they'd need another way to attract gamers. What better way to do so than to offer something that the competition does not have. While Sony and MS are playing "my gun is bigger than your gun", Nintendo just went and did their own thing and brought in a new interface that will be exclusive to their console (for the time being).
I had ZERO confidence in Nintendo until TGS. I thought they were done for and that the Revolution would bomb until I saw the controller. I probably would have bought the Rev anyway for my zelda, metroid and mario fix, but I would be lying if I said that the new controller didn't interest me. It just looks like its way too much fun and the possibilities are almost endless. As for graphics, this is a machine that has tech that's 5 years more advanced than the Cube, I'd imagine the graphics would be pretty damn sweet even if they aren't up to par with the 360 and ps3.
Warm Machine
Member
gamergirly said:
I'll be presumtuous and say it is because Sony bought their way into the industry, bought the talent, and paid for exclusives and thus shoving the real game companies out of the market. Sony fans arenot liked because they play whatever shit Sony sends their way that is targeted to their demographic quality or not.
Microsoft because they bought their way into the industry, the games are more PC based, and they have only a few hits but those hits run the system.
BTW, I don't really believe any of it but it is the general perception I get.
OG_Original Gamer
Member
Sathsquatch said:
I don't think Nintendo is trying to save the industry, but be pre-emptive. Let's not wait for shit to get bad, lets nip it in the bud now.
krypt0nian
Banned
Warm Machine said:
Ummm Nintendo used to make playing cards and at one time bought their way into the industry. If the idiots really believe this then they are needing some history lessons.
At least you don't buy into this nonsense.
OG_Original Gamer
Member
Y2Kevbug11 said:
Well you do have impression of some journalist playing Metroid Prime Echoes with the Revolution controller. Most came away impressed, so. There's the tech demo aswell.
GitarooMan
Member
Sathsquatch said:
I think this is a good point. I don't understand why people are "fans" of any particular console rather than just fans of games, but Nintendo fans for some reason seem to be more defensive when the company they pledge allegiance to is questioned. Might just be my perception, though....
krypt0nian
Banned
AniHawk said:
So they didn't make playing cards before becoming a VG power? Is that what you're saying?
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
krypt0nian said:
just curious. but how exactly did they buy their way into the industry?
krypt0nian
Banned
quadriplegicjon said:
Did they get a free pass due to Nintendo Magic? Or are you suggesting that aquiring developers is less benevolent than in-house dev?
Both are garbage. In business you use the best tools on hand to grow your marketshare. Nintendo was lucky enough to have Miyamoto/etc. SONY/Microsoft were smart enough to aquire IP/Devs/etc.
One is now more noble than the other? :lol
Doc Holliday
SPOILER: Columbus finds America
They made Donkey kong
krypt0nian
Banned
koam said:
Fuck you. Read the sentence. Everyone buys their way into any new industry. OMG Apple bought their way into MP3 players!!!!!1one!!!!!
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
krypt0nian said:
what? oh boy..
koam said:
ya. .
sljkdsldj
holy cow. i just heard my neighbor have an orgasm.. :O
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
krypt0nian said:
i think you should rethink your definition of 'buying your way into an industry'
krypt0nian said:
krypt0nian said:
So which one is it? Did they buy their way in or did they make their own games?
krypt0nian said:
I guess that was the next logical step. You got stuck in your own conflicting logic so you resort to cursing/bashing people. Anyway, I won't scoop down to your level, you'd just beat me with years of experience.
krypt0nian said:
What you said was that Nintendo bought their way into the video game industry. They didn't. They GAMBLED their way into it. Donkey Kong and the NES were both huge risks that very few people thought would become successful. They also established a new system that wasn't as crappy as Atari's during the late 70s/early 80s that still is kinda in effect today (I forget the specifics).
krypt0nian
Banned
koam said:
Its the same thing. You spend money to make money. Where did you get that negative spin on this? Because SONY superceded the industry leader its now a bad thing?
Making your games in house is not more noble than creating your portfolio by aquisition.
Sorry I don't believe in "buying your way in" That's something Nintendo fans use as a slam. Its not real.
HomerSimpson-Man
Member
Er, you guys know that Sony did make videogames before PS1 right? And exclusive content was grabbed by console makers happened before that too!! OMG!!!
Of All Trades
Member
From the gameboy line. Unless you have evidence that the GC is raking in the cash for them.mj1108 said:
Hell, look at September's NPD. Mario Baseball sold 165k and the N-hive is crapping itself with glee. Newsflash: 165k for a 1st party game at the peak of console sellthrough fucking sucks. Look how Batallion Wars and Geist bombed. The reality is that the Nintendo mindshare has dropped like a rock, and while they managed to pull in good sales for the first few years of the GC's life, their endgame has been terrible, and it's going to follow them into the Rev. It hurt them last fall when MP2 more or less crashed, when a Nintendo RPG has, after a year, only managed 600k (with pricedrops), and when Pikmin 2 completely bombed, despite massive critical acclaim.
You don't get to hit a big "mindshare-reset" button at the end of every generation. The loss of mindshare from the Saturn did a huge amount to destroy the DC, and the loss of mindshare from the GC is going to damage the Rev, especially since, at a minimum, the first 6 months of the console will be terrible until devs figure out how to properly implement the controls. You thought the first 7 months of DS were bad? Those were nothing in comparison, and during that time MS/Sony are going to be gangraping Nintendo's remaining console mindshare.
Gangraping, I tell you. And when the gangrape is over MS and Sony will team up with Gizmondo and Nokia and bukakke all over the sobbing Rev, her mascarra running down her face as the digital semen mixes with her tears of "innovation".
Sathsquatch
Member
Nintendo, MS, and Sony ALL gambled their way into the industry. Did anyone really think that Sony was going to dominate the industry with PS1. Didn't a lot of people expect MS to outright fail with the Xbox? There never was a set price at which a company could guarantee success in this industry. Each one of them took a major risk.AniHawk said:
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
krypt0nian said:
its not the same thing. if apple would have bought several record companies before releasing the ipod.. that would be buying into the industry.
krypt0nian said:
id say it is. hey, is EA noble?
krypt0nian said:
you're kinda changing your tune now. 'i dont believe in it anyway!!'
krypt0nian
Banned
quadriplegicjon said:
Only in name is it not the same thing. Spending money to make money. They spent the $$ on R&D, etc. Still a major investment and gamble (like that word now?)
Unless you're still going to say that how Nintendo did it is somehow more noble or better. Then you're full of shit.
AniHawk said:
Glad you came around. See? Its not that hard to give up the nostalgia.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
krypt0nian said:
who would you respect more.. a small company that became and industry leader.. or a huge conglomerate that bought out other companies in order to become an industry leader?
by the way, i like sony, and i think they have done a great job with the playstation. i even like the xbox (though i am a bit worried about MS's future plans)
True, but Nintendo the circumstances under which Nintendo became an established powers were different than Sony's or MS's, where I believe this argument stems from. I'm not saying what Sony or MS did was bad for the industry for their first systems (though I'd say the 360 is a pretty shitty deal so far). I was taking issue with krypt0nian's claims that Nintendo bought their way in, when they didn't, or at least not to the extent Sony or Microsoft did (I dunno. I wasn't around for most of 1985).
Of All Trades
Member
Nintendo brought the licensing aspect into play. With the Atari, anyone could make games for the system and Atari wouldn't see a dime, so Atari made their money off of 1st party games and hardware sales.AniHawk said:
I fail to see how Donkey Kong was a risk, though. Arcade games were entering the mainstream when DK came out. The NES was a bit of a gamble, but it came out after the VG crash had a little time to settle, and it's not really any more of a risk than Sony or MS releasing consoles.
If anything was a risk, I'd say it was the GB. There wasn't really any handheld to that extent preceeding it's release.
Ultimately, Nintendo "bought" their way into videogames to the same extent MS/Sony did. Atari is the only hardware company that really existed solely as a arcade/videogame maker.
Also, Nintendo most likely made playing cards for Nazis.
krypt0nian
Banned
quadriplegicjon said:
EA isn't and neither is Nintendo. Big corps hate you and only want your money. The fact that you think Nintendo is somehow different takes this exchange and makes it worthless.
I was going by your negative definition of "buying your way in" and saying everyone buys their way in. Sorry if that leap is hard for you.
Of All Trades said:
Well I'm kinda referring to their initial launch in October 1985 with the different retailers. I forget the specifics, but if the systems didn't sell, Nintendo'd reimburse them or something. They also went in with little brand name recognition (after the Atari deal fell through).
And Donkey Kong was sort of a big deal considering how popular it was and what the majority of arcade games were back then.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Of All Trades said:
entering a new market is not necessarily the same thing as buying your way into a market.
Shikamaru Ninja
任天å ã® å¿è
Well Nintendo entered the video game market in the 70s via arcade and Game&Watch.
You can hate corporations, but EA and Nintendo have two very different R&D philosophies.
You can hate corporations, but EA and Nintendo have two very different R&D philosophies.
Of All Trades
Member
SCEA and MS had videogame studios well prior to releasing consoles, so I'm not sure where you're going with this.quadriplegicjon said:
Nintendo leveraged their arcade, playing card, and G&W profits to make the Nintendo, just as Sony leveraged their electronics profits and MS leveraged their software profits (Sega, iirc, leveraged arcade and pachinko).
Nintendo wasn't small when they made the NES, and they certainly behave worse than most huge conglomerates when they were on top. Nor did Sony/MS simply appear from the aether as huge companies.
Again, only Atari can really claim to have risen to power from nothing but videogames.
Spastic Colon
Member
http://http://64.233.161.104/search...es/history.htm+order+3+million+yamauchi&hl=en
Seems like Nintendo did gamble and take chances in alot of ways with the original NES...they stood to lose a great deal if the NES if it was not a success
ThunderEmperor
Banned
Y2Kevbug11 said:
ho wmuch did those games make, and look at kameco. i would say the only reason this gaem will be good is from the pure fact that it has been in development forever.