Revolution


i laughed when i saw the "megaman" thing.

but seriously, nintendo is as 'evil' as anyone else. let them do their own pr.

...if anyone "killed" mario (symbolism-ha!) it was nintendo's gigantic ego. i always get the feeling that nintendo is a company that is not comfortable unless they can dominate the entire market, from manufacturing to software development, to marketing. but they haven't, not since the 80's, and they never will again.

so why a "revolution"? why not just a "good system with good games"? they need to pretend that they are re-inventing gaming to cover up the fact they refuse to re-invent themselves. a market once split in half is now split in three, and their "third" has to put up with the same self-censoring mentality that nintendo had 20 years ago, plus pr people who don't understand why everyone doesn't love bubbly purple consoles and teeny teeny discs.

that aside, i think the revolution has the possibility to introduce a real paradigm shift, or at least introduce a new feature with staying power, much like the rumble pak. i'm excited to see what it can do. but i will be very sad if, in 10 years, all that nintendo has left are the fanboys.

(just to cover my own ass: the only gaming systems i own at the moment are an NES and a GBA-SP. bro has a DS and gamecube and i play those sometimes. but for whatever reason I feel that the PS2 is a much better product and that sony's "getting it right".)
 
indeed, wrong forum.

rokdcasbah - seems weird to me that you'd voice the entire list of things people dislike about the state of nintendo and then practically channel the voice of Shigeru Miyamoto in the next paragraph.

There wont be any "paradigm shift" with the new system, it will continue to be another 3rd place niche system just like the gamecube as there really isnt anything that revolutionary coming from it. You don't change gaming with a funky peripheral controller with a port for MORE peripherals, you change gaming with games.
 
It might work out, you never know.

What I do know is that I feel alienated with the current state of the video game market, lately I have the impression that if you don't like grand theft auto and fps there's no games for you. I'm not sure if there are many who think like me, but if there are, nintendo might be on the spot.
 
indeed, wrong forum.

rokdcasbah - seems weird to me that you'd voice the entire list of things people dislike about the state of nintendo and then practically channel the voice of Shigeru Miyamoto in the next paragraph.

There wont be any "paradigm shift" with the new system, it will continue to be another 3rd place niche system just like the gamecube as there really isnt anything that revolutionary coming from it. You don't change gaming with a funky peripheral controller with a port for MORE peripherals, you change gaming with games.
Oh yeah, there is totally nothing revolutionary about it except that could change the very way we interact with games for ever.
Thats a pretty big thing if you ask me.

And, in Japan, the second largest videogames market in the world, the GC is hardly a niche third placed system.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
well for one thing i was trying to react to the main theme of that movie, which was that "real" games will win out over sex & violence. my thinking is, what's the difference? these are just artistic devices used to tell a story, it's possible to have a good game with or without them, i really don't see any difference here.

also i was reacting to the the fact that, i think nintendo markets themselves as a "brand" more than sony or microsoft (at least in the video game world, probably because they have more history). they also make a lot of statements like they invented the industry, with the implication that the revolution will re-invent it. it will not.

on top of this, i don't like the cutesy image that nintendo tries to push, it seems to me to be a continuation of the way they strongarmed devs in the nes days and the way that with many titles available on both megadrive and snes, the snes ones were censored to a degree.

and finally, while they may not have invented the industry, they did invent the system of being the single manufacturer for their games and locking out unauthorized games. i'm willing to bet that there'd be a much, much larger homebrew console market if not for their mafia mentality and the standards it set.

and again, on another level i (a) don't really care, beyond expressing my thoughts, and ( b ) think the revolution looks pretty fun.

Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)

can't believe i just quoted whitman when talking about nintendo...
 
Oh yeah, there is totally nothing revolutionary about it except that could change the very way we interact with games for ever.
Thats a pretty big thing if you ask me.

Yes, Nintendo is betting their future with a new input device that forces developers to break free of usual "formulas". That's multi-billion dollar question that no one knows how it will turn out. As I said in the other thread, Sony and MS put their money on premium hardware with I-can-do-more-than-just-games features, whereas Nintendo is putting their money on that remote-control-turned-wild input device. We'll see the glimpse of the winner by the end of 2007 holiday. At this point, anyone who pretends to know the result must be selling something.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
and any company that forces developers to do something will not last long. You can't force developers to do anything they don't want to do and this new controller will be hard to make developers do cross console developing. Nintendo BETTER have a back up controller plan when they see the support of 3rd parties dwindle even more than the N64 and Gamecube.
 
Either way, this won't be their last console, since it is the most profitable of the three major console makers.
 
Take away the portable sales and see who's most profitable. Gamecube did not outsell, PS2 or XboX. Lets say the PS3 will cost , $500. If they got 50 developers and Ninty has 10. then ninty will not be the most profitable. Just because they might be selling their system for less doesn't mean they will be most profitable, you need software to sell systems, and other than first party software, i don't see much happening for the Rev. Thats just what i think though.

But this is all speculation until the poc finally hits the shelves.
 
Take away the portable sales and see who's most profitable. Gamecube did not outsell, PS2 or XboX. Lets say the PS3 will cost , $500. If they got 50 developers and Ninty has 10. then ninty will not be the most profitable. Just because they might be selling their system for less doesn't mean they will be most profitable, you need software to sell systems, and other than first party software, i don't see much happening for the Rev. Thats just what i think though.

But this is all speculation until the poc finally hits the shelves.
Even without handhelds they were still more profitable, it's to do with the fact that they don't sell their consoles at a loss.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Even without handhelds they were still more profitable, it's to do with the fact that they don't sell their consoles at a loss.

Nintendo sells value while Sony sells coolness and hip. What MS sells? I don't know, all I know is they're the ultimate me-two company with the deepest pocket.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh yeah, there is totally nothing revolutionary about it except that could change the very way we interact with games for ever.
Thats a pretty big thing if you ask me.

And, in Japan, the second largest videogames market in the world, the GC is hardly a niche third placed system.

It's not. Every single input method the Revolution claims is revolutionary has been used in one form or other in the last 20 years of gaming. Motion tracking, light gun, camera, voice every one of them. Each with varying levels of failure and success but few ever really sticking around or becomeing a standard. Yes it "could change gaming, but it wont because the majority of gamers want a standard control system that works perfectly the first time not after 15 minutes of fiddling with sensitivity settings which is very likely to happen with the Revo.

The GC is second in japan and third in the US but ultimately Nintendo is banking on their handhelds.

Take away the portable sales and see who's most profitable. Gamecube did not outsell, PS2 or XboX.  Lets say  the PS3 will cost ,  $500.  If they got 50 developers and Ninty has 10.  then ninty will not be the most profitable.  Just because they might be selling their system for less doesn't mean they will be most profitable, you need software to sell systems, and other than first party software, i don't see much happening for the Rev.  Thats just what i think though.

But this is all speculation until the poc finally hits the shelves.

Nintendo will probably sell 1 Revo for ever ten PS3s sold but that dosent mean they cant be more profitable.

Nintendo made a higher profit several years in a row versus their opponents because they spend less in R&D. They don't spend 2 billion dollars creating a new chipset like Sony and they dont make huge deals with hardware manufacturers makers for custom set ups like MS. They make deals and partnerships, buy generally and readily availible equipment or make small requests for altered equipment, any number of smart moves to lower their costs. Their advertisment budget is used more efficiently, not dumping money into X-treeem Sports events like Sony or makeing huge giveaway promotions for their systems like MS. Nintendo KEEPS the money they make, they dont dump it back into the market. But on the other hand for Sony and MS games are only one of many different buisnesses and thus the profit from games isnt as important for them as it is for Nintendo.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I dont agree that 1 revo will sell for every 10 PS3s. It could well be the opposite or they could sell the same amount. It all depends on how much the PS3 will cost in comparison to the Revo and with industry insiders stating that the PS3 may end up costing $700 i think the Revo is more likely to sell more than that. I mean dont get me wrong, ill probably buy a PS3 and a Revo but im not willing to shell out more than £300 for a console. I did that with the xbox when it first got released and now it sits gathering dust because i couldnt find any games on it that interested me. But yeh it'll all come down to the price and whether or not Ninty has decided to make partnerships with third party developers. if not, well Revo will fail because no one will wait 6 months to get 1 new game for a console because only first parties are developing for it.
 
The big part is software sales. Even on N64, Nintendo enjoyed mega-sellers like Mario64, Zelda64, and SmashBros that sold over 5 millions, whereas best selling gamecube title tops around 2 millions and the rest of big guns stays just over a million mark. It could be a chicken and egg discussion, but I would blame the bad performance of gamecube to poorer games on the system. The system itself is very efficient and easy to work with.
 
the mega sellers you listed are all first party games. Nintendo doesn't need to rely on 3rd party and i think that is what will ultimetly do them in. Also forcing developers to use hardware or "peripherals" will drive them away. You won't see any more Resident for PS3, and Revolution if its a pain in the ass to port because of hte controllers and stuff.
 
Angel posted on Feb 1 2006 at 10:03 AM said:
the mega sellers you listed are all first party games.  Nintendo doesn't need to rely on 3rd party and i think that is what will ultimetly do them in.  Also forcing developers to use hardware or "peripherals" will drive them away.  You won't see any more Resident for PS3, and Revolution if its a pain in the ass to port because of hte controllers and stuff.

Nintendo console has been 1st party driven, and will stay 1st party driven. That new remote controller device is intriging to developers including myself, I and my coworkers spent hours discussing about the possibilities when it was announced last September. Of course, when the pocket book issue comes up and publishers start to pull their strings, developers have no power.

A good friend of mine who worked on a game that was poorly done told me that the publisher basically told them it's time to ship, so that they had to wrap up whatever they had and finished it. This rather sad story happens everywhere, so next time you see a bad game, don't just squarely blame it on the developer alone. When it comes to development time, Nintendo is one of the most, if not THE-most, relaxed publishers around, and the quality (most of times :)) shows it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top