Support NeoGAF

[Monk]

What Nintendo wants to do is create unique gaming experiences, or to quote miyamoto:

Sitting in front of your monitor with a controller, there is really nowhere to go from that paradigm, all you can do is make it prettier and faster.
What nintendo wants to do is open up that road, create something that goes beyond.

http://www.cube-europe.com/~news/articlescan.jpg


I mean who the hell is going to buy the Revolution for the regular third party games? People who are interested in those are going to get it on a Sony or MS console anyway as shown by this gen.

If they did take the same direction as the others, you would still get Nintendo being slaughtered. And essentially useless. So why not take gaming in a new direction?



p.s. that article is from an Australian newspaper, shit, the Rev already has more publicity than the GC here. :lol

 

[Madame M]

Why should we all speculate and argue. Speculating and arguing only makes the anticipation of the new consoles worse. Go play some games that are out NOW.

 

[Monk]

No good rpgs as of late, makes me talkative.

 

[AniHawk]

No good rpgs as of late, makes me talkative.

Riviera isn't good?

 

[dog$]

Nintendo can dance around and insist until they're blue in the face that they don't directly compete with Sony and Microsoft, but, much like DS vs PSP as a recent example, consumers will view the companies as being in competition regardless. DrPepper is still in competition with Coke and Pepsi, even though DrPepper tastes nothing like the competition.

Also, considering we know that the Rev is a set-top box that will allow older generation games to be played on it, the Rev already has enough in common with the competition that anyone who insists the Rev is not "going the same direction as the others" is just echoing Nintendo's PR.

 

[Nightbringer]

The only thing that the people wants is going to play good games for the next generations.

For me the Revolution can go to the hell if the support from the third parties are equal or worse than the GCN support.

I like videogames, not the companies that made them,

 

[Monk]

What is your point dog$? I know they will be competing but what is the point of competing directly. I mean would it have been better if instead od Dr.Pepper the company decides to make Dr. Cola? What is wrong about going after the same consumer a different way?

 

[dog$]

I know they will be competing but what is the point of competing directly

By making equitable products, all 3 companies are competing directly, no matter how much Nintendo insists to the contrary. At this point, the only things which differentiate the PS3, X360, and Rev are spec-sheets and the company's marketing angles.

What is wrong about going after the same consumer a different way?

Nothing wrong with that at all, but isn't Nintendo the company that's making all of these statements about how they're going after the "non-gamer"?
By saying things like this:

Sitting in front of your monitor with a controller, there is really nowhere to go from that paradigm, all you can do is make it prettier and faster.
What nintendo wants to do is open up that road, create something that goes beyond.

isn't Nintendo effectively abandoning going after "the same consumers"?

 

[Monk]

By making equitable products, all 3 companies are competing directly, no matter how much Nintendo insists to the contrary. At this point, the only things which differentiate the PS3, X360, and Rev are spec-sheets and the company's marketing angles.

That is true, but so far they seem to indicate they are going after the DS sort of route. And they haven't even given the specs yet.

Nothing wrong with that at all, but isn't Nintendo the company that's making all of these statements about how they're going after the "non-gamer"?

But they never said that they aren't going for the gamer aswell. Look at the DS, it's actually selling decently to the other 50% of the demographics.

By saying things like this:
isn't Nintendo effectively abandoning going after "the same consumers"?

How are they not going after the same consumer? Are buses going after different consumers than those of cars? They both do the same thing but differently and yet caters to the same consumers.

 

[COCKLES]

Revolution controller will flop big time.

Simply because users don't like control methods that actually require them to make any effort beyond button/thumb presses. It's the same reason you'll never see Minority Report holo displays, can you imagine going into work using a computer and having to make all those fucking arm movements all day? Far too much manual labour!

 

[Hitman]

Nintendo should'nt be trying to be totally different then regular gaming. They should take regular gaming and ADD to it. It's stupid not trying to compete for atleast osme of the market share of Microsoft and Sony.

 

[ironichaos]

Everyone is always demanding, "More realistic graphics!" Yet why don't we ever insist on more realistic control? Is pressing the A button to slice an enemy realistic? Just because you're stuck in the past, resisting change doesn't mean that change won't happen.

 

[Redbeard]

Everyone is always demanding, "More realistic graphics!" Yet why don't we ever insist on more realistic control? Is pressing the A button to slice an enemy realistic? Just because you're stuck in the past, resisting change doesn't mean that change won't happen.

There's a reason things like this aren't around.

 

[Ponn]

A major problem with Nintendo's plan is they are trying to get the non-gamers for some reason and in the mean time alienating a part of their current market. They may say the DS is trying to attract a different audience but I would like to see some numbers on that because it seems the only market they keep grabbing is their current nintendo fans and hardcore gamers.

For someone that is a non-gamer that they may be going after they will still know what a controller is. And their probably is a better reason why they are a non-gamer then just the "controller is too complex" theory. So in the end they are still just marketing towards their current audience. If you want to be different that's fine, I honestly enjoy a little shake up once in a while (unless its a gyro controller, pleast god let it not be a stupid gimmicky gyro controller). If they don't want to compete with MS and PS3 I think that is a very smart move this generation with those two consoles so similar. Just don't try to wrap it up in wishy washy PR bullcrap thats all.

 

[Ruzbeh]

A major problem with Nintendo's plan is they are trying to get the non-gamers for some reason and in the mean time alienating a part of their current market. They may say the DS is trying to attract a different audience but I would like to see some numbers on that because it seems the only market they keep grabbing is their current nintendo fans and hardcore gamers.

If you look at Nintendogs and Brain Training, I think they are selling stuff to a different audience. 40% Of all Nintendogs buyers are female. 1/3 Of all Nintendogs buyers are DS adopters. And you can't question Nintendogs, since it has universal appeal. As for Brain Training, anyone can pick it up and start brain training. It happens to be the first game Miyamoto's parents can actually play (so he says in an interview). So, it's not like all kinds of non-gamers are picking it up. But if you market everything right you can really reel um all in.

Also, I don't think Nintendo alienated a part of the current market at all with the DS. The DS is basically an improved GBA and there's Mario, Zelda coming out. How can they possibly alienate their current market at this point?

 

[Shao]

Some people are confused, Nintendo is not "differentiating" itself from competitors, nor is it "going after non-gamers".

There is one Nintendo philosophy which is often forgotten, that everyone is a gamer at heart. Its a basic human desire to play and be curious, to explore and have fun. Nintendo's games have been about this from the start - they're just expanding on things now to make things even more natural and closer to this human instinct.

i.e. Nintendogs

 

[Kuroyume]

They did the same thing with the GC: no online (well except for a game or two) and those small GC DISCS (therefore no DVD playback). Well the GC was a huge success so I guess there is no reason... :lol

 

[Ruzbeh]

They did the same thing with the GC: no online (well except for a game or two) and those small GC DISCS (therefore no DVD playback). Well the GC was a huge success so I guess there is no reason... :lol

No online and those small GC discs didn't hurt the Gamecube much. Not much at all. Unless those GC discs were a huge problem for developers (instead of an irritation). No online didn't hurt the PS2, now did it?

 

[ziran]

i welcome difference and after ds have faith nintendo will deliver something i will enjoy.

i know much has been said about the non-gamer, but people are taking this group to be one unit, which is wrong. there are types of non-gamer, at least 3.

1. people who currently don't play because videogames don't appeal to them. these people will probably never buy a console, no matter what's on it.
2. those who would buy a console if something interests them [but currently don't own one].
3. older gamers who used to play but find current videogames uninteresting.

from what nintendo has said they're going after 2 and 3. i'd say ds, nintendogs, brain training etc are appealing to 2, and possibly 3.

speaking as a gamer in his 30s i know loads of people who used to play videogames but have no interest now. even i'm falling into this category to some extent. i'm excited by revolution because miyamoto and iwata have echoed what's been said in conversations i've had with friends.

i'm not saying revolution is going to inherit the earth and be the only console, rather i think it will find a significant audience.

 

[APF]

I mean who the hell is going to buy the Revolution for the regular third party games? People who are interested in those are going to get it on a Sony or MS console anyway as shown by this gen.

If they did take the same direction as the others, you would still get Nintendo being slaughtered. And essentially useless. So why not take gaming in a new direction?

Isn't that a chicken-or-the-egg question?

Third-parties make great games; unique games; innovative games; games people want to play. By not having robust third-party support Nintendo would be greatly limiting the appeal of their console.

There is nothing Nintendo can do, either from a technology standpoint or a gameplay standpoint, which cannot be emulated by other technology companies or developers. So if they "take gaming in a new direction," other consoles and other developers will follow in their own way--only with possibly more powerful hardware, and a much larger library of titles from which to choose; titles which millions of people already want to play. On the other hand, if Nintendo brings-out a comparable machine from a technology and support standpoint, they will be in a much better position from which to do whatever they want in terms of driving innovation/the direction of gaming, because whatever they're doing will be a better immediate selling point than what's offered by the competition.

 

[Ponn]

If you look at Nintendogs and Brain Training, I think they are selling stuff to a different audience. 40% Of all Nintendogs buyers are female. 1/3 Of all Nintendogs buyers are DS adopters. And you can't question Nintendogs, since it has universal appeal. As for Brain Training, anyone can pick it up and start brain training. It happens to be the first game Miyamoto's parents can actually play (so he says in an interview). So, it's not like all kinds of non-gamers are picking it up. But if you market everything right you can really reel um all in.

Also, I don't think Nintendo alienated a part of the current market at all with the DS. The DS is basically an improved GBA and there's Mario, Zelda coming out. How can they possibly alienate their current market at this point?

Never said they alienated their market with DS, it would almost be impossible with them integrating GBA backwards compatibility which IMHO is a huge selling point for the DS. I see where the confusion came on that being in the same paragraph. The current direction they say they are taking with the Revolution and their overall philosophy at E3. The thing is I would like to see some honest to gosh numbers on how many non-gamers actually flocked to the DS. 1/3 of all nintendog buyers may be DS adopters but how many of them are non-gamers? A non-gamer is really just that, a non-gamer. You don't make a steak for a vegetarian. I honestly don't think Nintendo will be nearly that stupid to forego their current gamer market and go after a non-existing market (well, maybe i'm wrong on that) but I still stand that this whole thing is just PR smoke.

 

[Newduck]

Theres a difference in going in your own direction, such as the DS with two screens and touch etc, and not keeping up or having features which should be industry standards (Hi Def, Online). Nintendo seem to have difficulty introducing their own features along with most of those of their competitors, anything interesting they tend to have always seems to be at the expense of something else, which is why people constantly want justification for these features.

 

[Zeo]

Revolution controller will flop big time.

Simply because users don't like control methods that actually require them to make any effort beyond button/thumb presses. It's the same reason you'll never see Minority Report holo displays, can you imagine going into work using a computer and having to make all those fucking arm movements all day? Far too much manual labour!

Yeah, uh, except you don't know anything about it, and the chances of them making it MORE complicated than pressing buttons is very slim.

(And yeah, people hate making "effort" beyond button/thumb presses. That's why everyone hates Kirby: Canvas Curse.)

 

[JoDark]

Because I play; and MANY of us play on HDTV's.

But the end of this cycle, virtaully everyone will have an HDTV; it's lame (and a cheap ass RAM savings) to ignore the tech of the display device.

and I own EVERY nintendo IP from NES/SNES/N64 that I care about (ALL of the 1st party games); so why should I pay to get them on one box with an odd conglomeration controller???

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

There is nothing Nintendo can do, either from a technology standpoint or a gameplay standpoint, which cannot be emulated by other technology companies or developers. So if they "take gaming in a new direction," other consoles and other developers will follow in their own way--only with possibly more powerful hardware, and a much larger library of titles from which to choose; titles which millions of people already want to play.

There's nothing anyone can do that can't be copied if it's successful. That doesn't stop the first one from getting there having a huge advantage. No "collect a monster" game has been a hit like the Pokémon games. No "urban free roamer" has been a hit as big as the 3D Grand Theft Autos. In hardware much of Nintendo's GBA and DS momentum is from the huge success they had with the original Game Boy, and Sony is still riding from the success of the original PlayStation.

On the other hand, if Nintendo brings-out a comparable machine from a technology and support standpoint, they will be in a much better position from which to do whatever they want in terms of driving innovation/the direction of gaming, because whatever they're doing will be a better immediate selling point than what's offered by the competition.

That's GameCube. Comparable to the others from a technological standpoint and $30-100 cheaper depending on the time. Had some early third party advantages like getting Tony Hawk 3 at launch while Xbox got Tony Hawk 2x, and the Resident Evil announcement.

 

[Agent Icebeezy]

I've avoided this thread for while because the Nintendo fan in me wants to cry about what they have become. The games are still great, but their direction is way off. I don't want new paradigms. I want to be able to kick someone's ass in Smash Brothers or Mario Kart. They have some of the greatest multiplayer games in their stable and yet they remain complacent. I'm the only male here in my household. Mario Party is cool with the wife and kids, but that lame after awhile. I can't expect them to hold their own in Mario Kart with me. I'm 25, been gaming since the age of 5, my twin daugthers are only 5, come on. If it isn't The Sims, the wife is sticking around for too long. I'm glad they still put their all into their games like the upcoming Zelda. That will hopefully be better than Ocarina of Time, either way, it'll be AAA. My kids know who Mario is, but, they don't really know Mario, and the significant importance Mario has had on the industry. My kids would rather play Blinx because it looks better. I play XBL almost every day, that is an important part of the future. I'll still get a Rev, I mean, Zelda is there. Every generation, a Nintendo system is the only definate. I know I'll get some great games from this, they have been doing this for 20 years, basically my life. I think they are making their biggest blunder yet. However, if they go down even further, I'll be going down with them, I can't live without Nintendo games.

BTW: If this Rev is basically a glorified GC, what will the price be? $150, $200, $100.......

 

[Andy787]

Sitting in front of your monitor with a controller, there is really nowhere to go from that paradigm, all you can do is make it prettier and faster.

Tack on 'and better' to the end of that, and you know what? I'm perfectly ok with that.

I don't know about others, but I personally am very happy with the current state of games, and how they work. I never wanted games to evolve into the VR headsets and stupid, counter intuitive input devices that we have "imagined" as the future. We don't have flying cars or teleporters yet.

 

[NintendosBooger]

Nintendo can dance around and insist until they're blue in the face that they don't directly compete with Sony and Microsoft, but, much like DS vs PSP as a recent example, consumers will view the companies as being in competition regardless. DrPepper is still in competition with Coke and Pepsi, even though DrPepper tastes nothing like the competition.

By your analogy, is Square-Enix in competition with EA? Is Sega competing with Konami? They all make video games, correct? Their targeted markets in terms of age are all similar, too, right?

 

[Almighty_Chocobo]

I'm to the point now where I wish Nintendo would just let it go and go 3rd party.
The only reason I buy Nintendo systems is for Nintendo games.

 

[Ponn]

By your analogy, is Square-Enix in competition with EA? Is Sega competing with Konami? They all make video games, correct? Their targeted markets in terms of age are all similar, too, right?

Well, yes they are. They are all in competition for the consumers money and they know its not endless. You think NFL 2k wasn't in competition with EA sports? Why do you think EA just up and bought the NFL license?

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

Tack on 'and better' to the end of that, and you know what? I'm perfectly ok with that.

"And better" could generally be done without the extra tech, though, unless a core point of the game is awesome AI or needing 500 recognizeable characters simultaneously.

Well, yes they are. They are all in competition for the consumers money and they know its not endless. You think NFL 2k wasn't in competition with EA sports? Why do you think EA just up and bought the NFL license?

His point isn't that a football game isn't competing with a football game. But that the market is large enough for there to be a football game and an RPG without one totally eating the other's sales.

 

[Ponn]

His point isn't that a football game isn't competing with a football game. But that the market is large enough for there to be a football game and an RPG without one totally eating the other's sales.

The analogy is majorily flawed then and has nothing to do with the quote he way trying to compare it too. I happen to have all consoles but I realize a majority of gamers don't have the funds for all consoles. So systems, handheld or home will always be in competition for that factor alone. Games are always competing too, it's easy to say a football game isn't competing against a RPG (unless the consumer wants both and only has enough money for one, then they are competing). They are always competing for a sale though regardless of another football game or another rpg or another game entirely. You can't put crap in a box and sell it, well some can, but not most of the time.

 

[NintendosBooger]

The analogy is majorily flawed then and has nothing to do with the quote he way trying to compare it too. I happen to have all consoles but I realize a majority of gamers don't have the funds for all consoles. So systems, handheld or home will always be in competition for that factor alone. Games are always competing too, it's easy to say a football game isn't competing against a RPG (unless the consumer wants both and only has enough money for one, then they are competing). They are always competing for a sale though regardless of another football game or another rpg or another game entirely. You can't put crap in a box and sell it, well some can, but not most of the time.

My point is, an RPG made by one company and a sports game made by another, both released right around the same time, are not in direct competition with one another since they're each targeting a different sub-category of gamers. With that in mind, why can't a console, that supposedly boasts distinct functionality, features, ideas, direction, and a unique swarm of games that caters to a different sub-category of gamers (call them kids, if it makes you feel better) not be perceived in a similar situation as a game with different content, gameplay, and tone?

 

[Ponn]

My point is, an RPG made by one company and a sports game made by another, both released right around the same time, are not in direct competition with one another since they're each targeting a different sub-category of gamers. With that in mind, why can't a console, that supposedly boasts distinct functionality, features, ideas, direction, and a unique swarm of games that caters to a different sub-category of gamers (call them kids, if it makes you feel better) not be perceived in a similar situation as a game with different content, gameplay, and tone?

Because a video game system plays video games of all genres. You are comparing the truck that carries fruit to oranges. This is really a nonsensical debate, if you can't see the difference then I don't know what too tell you.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

The point is it goes for ANYTHING. There's room for both Madden and Final Fantasy. There's room for the Hummer and the Beetle. There's room for bananas and grapes. There's room for Discmans and iPods. There's room for Frosted Flakes and Mucelix. There's room for PCs and Macs. There's room for PSP and DS. There's room for Imax and traditional theaters. There's room for paper and plastic.

 

[Tarazet]

The point is it goes for ANYTHING. There's room for both Madden and Final Fantasy. There's room for the Hummer and the Beetle. There's room for bananas and grapes. There's room for Discmans and iPods. There's room for Frosted Flakes and Mucelix. There's room for PCs and Macs. There's room for PSP and DS. There's room for Imax and traditional theaters. There's room for paper and plastic.

The more you segmentate, though, the less you will sell. Quiznos will never make as much money as McDonald's.

 

[bravojohny]

I guess Revolution will keep straight forward. Nintendo can't compete against Sony and Microsoft under the same rules, cause it would be a serius disaster, maybe worst about what happen to GC. Revolution might caught the atention of welcome gamers and more precisely the japanese ones.

 

[Ponn]

The point is it goes for ANYTHING. There's room for both Madden and Final Fantasy. There's room for the Hummer and the Beetle. There's room for bananas and grapes. There's room for Discmans and iPods. There's room for Frosted Flakes and Mucelix. There's room for PCs and Macs. There's room for PSP and DS. There's room for Imax and traditional theaters. There's room for paper and plastic.

Nintendo can dance around and insist until they're blue in the face that they don't directly compete with Sony and Microsoft, but, much like DS vs PSP as a recent example, consumers will view the companies as being in competition regardless. DrPepper is still in competition with Coke and Pepsi, even though DrPepper tastes nothing like the competition.

For gods sake what is the matter with you people, do you even realize what the original quote was? Theres room for everything but it is still going to compete with something in some way shape or form. If you don't think the DS or PSP is competing go into one of the countless DS vs. PSP or which one should I buy threads. I always found it hard to compare a PSP and DS with their different features and prices but at least i'm not that dense to understand despite their differences they are still competing in a handheld market. I suggest an economics course over philosophy next time.

 

[NintendosBooger]

Theres room for everything but it is still going to compete with something in some way shape or form.

In that case, doesn't this apply to everything? Cafeteria food vs. Saving money for the next Mario Party game? :lol