Quote:Jaffray Picks Sony to Win, But Lead for 360
New hardware estimates from analysts at Piper Jaffray have picked the Xbox 360 to maintain a lead over PS3 in the US market through 2008 but ultimate victory for Sony. Also, hard drive equipped PSPs are tipped for mid-2006.
ImageToday's report from Piper Jaffray has a number of optimistic figures. Overall hardware unit sales are predicted to grow 30% from 2006 to 2011. Most of that growth will be in handheld hardware, which has been tipped to grow 45% over the next cycle.
Software growth is predicted to go from $7.0 billion in 2005 to $10.0 billion in 2008. The analysts say that the sector as a whole should outperform broader market indices.
The introduction of PS3 and Revolution in the US is pegged to be late 2006 with Sony introducing the rumored HD equipped PSP (presumably to tap into the iPod market) in mid-2006.
Hardware market share for the next cycle is predicted to eventually be 45%-50% for Sony, Microsoft at 35%-40% and Nintendo with 15%. That said, through 2008, Xbox 360 is predicted to be the market leader.
HW Units (millions) 2005 2006 2007 2008
PS2 5 4.3 3 2
Xbox 2.8 0.3 0 0
Gamecube 1.6 0.8 0.5 0
Gameboy - Series 7.5 5.5 5.6 6
PSP 3.8 5.5 5 6
PS3 0 1 6 8.5
Xbox 360 1.1 6 6.5 6
Revolution 0 0.5 2 3
Total 21.8 23.9 28.6 31.5
Installed Base (millions) 2005 2006 2007 2008
PSP 3.8 9.3 14.3 20.3
PS3 0 1 7 15.5
Xbox 360 1.1 7.1 13.6 19.6
Revolution 0 0.5 2.5 5.5
Where do they find these analysts, and why do they always hate Nintendo...
They don't even think the Revolution will sell a million units in '06. Where do these people get this lopsided information.
Darunia: If you knew how to polka as well as Nintendo knew how to run a business, you'd be invited to every freakin' Oktoberfest from now till the day you die.
Yeah... 2006: Revolution, 500,000 units. PS3, 1 million. X360, 6 million. Plus 1.1 million in '05 on top of that.
Yeah right. It's like they completely discounted Nintendo and decided that they'd be a total failure... well, I think they will be surprised. :)
Considering we only just found out about the Revolutions controller and still have no idea what games it will have it launch and shortly there-after making predictions on sales is pointless. Actually, it's pointless anyway.
Revolution will probably be the first of the new systems I buy. There's even a good chance it might be the only one. We'll see.
At this forum, I'd bet that the majority of the active posters will be doing the same... I'd consider more if they weren't so expensive, but they are, so...
Ironically, I got my PS2 nearly two and a half years before I got my Gamecube. (Gamecube was already out at the time that I got the PS2.)
This time, I've had a change of heart. I'm going back to my 1999 mentality, I guess. :D
I got my GameCube first. I got my PS2 one year, on the day, later. I'll definitely get a Revolution, and probably a PS3. I haven't decided whether a 360 will be in my future, but I certainly wouldn't rule it out.
I'm sure I'll end up getting all of them.
Xbox360 for Perfect Dark Zero [if it doesn't suck *crosses fingers*] and Elder Scrolls 4.
Playstation 3 for SquareEnix RPGs and whatever games the ICO developer makes.
Revolution for...well, I don't think I need to explain THAT.
Yeah, I might also get a PS3. We'll see. :)
I'll probably end up with all three, but Revolution will be mine at launch. I got my GameCube at launch, my PS2 for my birthday the following year, and my Xbox for Christmas the year after that. At this point I'd probably get a PS3 before a 360, but that could easily change by the time I'm ready to get one.
Revolution at launch, the others depend on their price and if I actually have money. :)
You gotta love how they completely fail to mention DS or the fact that the DS is going online in a month.
If PDZ doesn't suck, i'll get a 360 as soon as the game is available. But God I wish by some miracle it would come out on Revolution... I hate buying a system for one game I want. I also hope Nintendo is trying to get Ge and PD for Rev's d/l games...
Revolution at launch obviously, but I have no reason to get a PS3 yet. MGS is fun but hardly a reason to buy the entire system. the usual sony 'fighting game, racing game' packages dont excite me either, unless it's a fantasy racer, which hasn't been announced yet.
In fact the only game announced for PS3 that has my interest is Warhawk 2 which could prove to be a big hit... but looking at the original Warhawk, the flying mechanics and the music are the only things worth mentioning in that game. Most of the levels sucked in design and the sound effects were horrid. (same sound bank and graphics engine from Twisted Metal) But the flying mechanics and fluid everything was jut through a d-pad was really amazing.
So PS3 is a distant 3rd right now, unless a game pop ups like square and... Final Fantasy Tactics Ultra 'You have no life' Edition. Otherwise it's going to be a bunch of me-too and multi-platform games, I cant stand any of Sony's mascots or platformers... though they'll probably be the first of the next gen systems to get a Castlevania game, which deserves some looking in to.
I have no problem with buying an XBox2 for PDZ and nothing else. I know the 360 will most likely have about 5 completely exclusive games for it in its life, counting PDZ and Kameo. But, PDZ, if it's going to be what I think it will be, is going to be totally worth it.
Still a distant 2nd on my priorities. The Revolution (or whatever they end up calling it) is going to be tough. I can see me in EB looking at the Revolution thinking: "Food for a week... or Revolution... life... or.... life without Revolution...". It'll be a tough call. :D
If you've gotten as far as EB, Lazy, you know that you're already going to buy that Revolution... even if they're overcharging you and forcing you to buy a bundle you don't want. :)
I got my PS2 for Christmas in 2001, the year after its launch. I begged for a Gamecube each year thereafter until my 18th birthday in April, 2004. I saved my birthday money up, as well as my paychecks, and bought a Gamecube. I still don't have an XBox, and with 360 right around the corner, I don't see a point in getting one now. I'm not even sure I'll get a 360. I won't get any of the new systems immediately; instead, I'll wait for the prices to go down, as well as wait for some good games to come out so that video game shopping will be fun again for just a little while. Revolution will be the first system I get, then PS3 when I have the money again. Then, maybe someday I might get a 360.
I got a PS2 the summer after it launched, I got a Gamecube the very hour that it launched and I got an Xbox on the Christmas of '03, I think.
My brother-in-law has an XBox, but then again, he lives an hour away from here.
I recently got a bit of a bonus at work and the thought of buying an X-Box did cross my mind. Although, upon further consideration, there isn't a great deal in the X-Box library that really jumps out at me. Plus, the X-Box will be practically obsolete in a few months.
So I'll just sit quietly and wait for the Revolution. I have a friend who'll be getting a 360 on or near launch and, from that, I can see what it has to offer in person and, perhaps then I will consider getting a 360.
Yeah, the main reason I never bothered with an XBox was due to the small library of games that I'd ever care for. There's a chance I'll get a 360 though, as it will have the 360 library added to the old XBox library. I never got a PSX (though my brother had one) but I did get a PS2, which caused it to have a larger library for me: the PSX library and the PS2 library. (Not to mention I also use it as a DVD player. Pfft, who we kiddin'? I primarily use it as a DVD player!)
The PS2 DVD player is a whole bunch of no good. It crushes blacks and adds too much enhancement (line detail). It also has a an overscan of 9% so if your TV has an overscan of 5% you just lost an extra 4%. And on top of all that it has a lovely contrast flicker that starts up in any bright scene.
Those of you who have no idea what i'm talking about dont need to worry about it, you probably wouldn't notice a difference watching a karp DVD player or a good one. But for people like me (completely anal about picture quality) the PS2 DVD is worth its weight in mule shit.
The XBox DVD player is better but still no where near as good as a stand alone proscan DVD player through S (better fine color detail) or component (better overall picture quality) or of course DVI, the mother of all inputs.
Which the Revolution has an output for, so says IGN. It's gonna be spiffy... I just hope its 5.1/7.1 out of the box like the rumors are suggesting... all video games should use true 5.1 with dedicated multi-channel sound... *masturbates*
The cable in my room is shitty, and therefore anything I watch on my PS2 is better quality than anything I watch on TV or with my VCR, so I wouldn't notice if PS2's DVD is subpar in terms of visuals. My TV is good, but the cable in here sucks. At least my PS2 DVD has never skipped. The DVD player in the living room sucks ass. It's always skipping and fucking things up. Plus it's a five-disc player. Who the fuck needs a five-disc player anyway? My brother wasn't thinking when he bought that piece of junk.
My TV has a VCR and DVD built all into one so I've rarely used it to play DVD's, except when I've taken it someplace for the very purpose of playing DVD's. I'm not too fussy about picture quality myself, so I don't mind the PS2 player, I just have little use for it with my current setup.
Looking at X-Box games, very few really catch my eye that I couldn't already get for PS2 or GameCube. The Halo games are obvious, Fable looks interesting, and there are a few others that I wouldn't mind trying but...spending that much for a new system I already don't have room for (Take a hint from Sony and make it SMMMAAAAALLLLLLLLERRR!) just for a few games that I can play on a next-gen console in November...meh. No thanks.
I see plenty of X-Box (and PS/PS2) games I wish I had, I just don't want to spend that much money just to get some more games I wish I had...
Knights of the Old Republic 1 and 2
Jade Empire
Those are pretty good reasons to own an Xbox, but yeah, there aren't really that many great Xbox games.
Most of the games I own for Xbox are multiplatform games that I bought because Xbox had the best versions, or PC games that I couldn't run on my computer because it is 6 years old. If you don't have a computer to run current games Xbox isn't a bad alternative.
I own GTA3, VC, and SA on PS2, and I got them all before they ever came out for XBox. Not a lot of other XBox games that look that interesting to me. (A few, sure, so it's possible that I'll get a 360 at some point, but it's my lowest priority. I'd rather get a Revolution first, not to mention a DS and a PSP, then after that I'd like a PS3. But I sure as hell am not getting the original XBox at this point.)
I'm not sure why these guys are idiots, the Gamecube has lost Nintendo major market share since the N64. They've lost so many third party developers, and with the new controller I just can't see them making a big recovery. They've been heading toward niche status for quite some time, and it looks like they are ready to settle there.
But, the one thing they aren't losing though is MONEY, while the same cannot be said of Microsoft and to a lesser extent Sony.
I don't see how anyone could possibly look at what Nintendo has said about the Revolution and come to the conclution "they're going for niche status". The evidence points in the opposite direction...
Even worse are the people who say Nintendo is doomed to go the way of Sega... but they have no understanding of the concept of "money" or the fact that Nintendo makes quite a good amount of it. :)
It's amazing isn't it? They are 3rd place in America, second place world wide, but manage to make more money than any other game developer (well, actually I think EA manages to beat them, or not, I really don't have the figures on that...).
If you compare Nintendo to Sony and Microsoft's gaming divisions it's simply not contest at all, Nintendo blows them out of the water. Microsoft is $4 billion in the red and Sony is barely turning a profit, while Nintendo on the other hand has brought in a comfortable profit nearly every quarter [minus ONE] since they got into the videogame market.
Just more proof they're doomed -- they're doing things differently from everyone else, and everyone knows that different is BAD!
Paco Wrote:I'm not sure why these guys are idiots, the Gamecube has lost Nintendo major market share since the N64. They've lost so many third party developers, and with the new controller I just can't see them making a big recovery. They've been heading toward niche status for quite some time, and it looks like they are ready to settle there.
If anything, the controller will be a large part of their potential recovery! Finally breaking tradition with a new way to control games has the potential to revolutionize the market (pun <i>INTENDED!</i>).
But if you'd rather sit back and have the same old experience with a bit of a flashier show on your TV, then I won't stop you.
Quote:But if you'd rather sit back and have the same old experience with a bit of a flashier show on your TV, then I won't stop you.
There's nothing at all wrong with this... it's just that that's not all that can be done, and only Nintendo is trying to do anything about it.
You know that Nintendo's virtually the only console developer left from the 80's still making consoles?
Magnavox - Gone
Atari - Gone [or close enough]
Sega - Only making games now
Mattel - Gone
Commodore - Gone
Tandy - Gone
Fairchild Semiconducter - Gone
Phillips - Gone
General Consumer Electric - Gone
Coleco - Gone
Sinclair Research - Gone
Not many game developers made it out of the 80's either and some that did are gone now. Crazy stuff.
Quote:Atari - Gone [or close enough]
No, they're gone. They went out of business after the Jaguar. Sure, their game assets and names and logo have been used by several companies since (Hasbro, now Infogrames), but that doesn't mean that the current "Atari" has anything to do with Atari other than having paid the right people enough money to use the name.
Quote:You know that Nintendo's virtually the only console developer left from the 80's still making consoles?
'Virtually'? ... who else is still alive making consoles from back then? I mean, who's making consoles now...
Nintendo
Microsoft
Sony
Nokia
Tiger Telematics (if the Gizmondo counts...
)
Those guys making the Phantom
and that's it, I think...
None of those other companies were making consoles in the '80s...
Quote:Commodore - Gone
Tandy - Gone
They made computers, not consoles, so I wouldn't say that they count for this list...
Quote:Not many game developers made it out of the 80's either and some that did are gone now. Crazy stuff.
At least some developers from then are still alive, though... though with consolidation a bunch have been bought up by larger companies.
Quote:They made computers, not consoles, so I wouldn't say that they count for this list...
I know, I just thought I'd list them anyway.
A Black Falcon Wrote:I don't see how anyone could possibly look at what Nintendo has said about the Revolution and come to the conclution "they're going for niche status". The evidence points in the opposite direction...
The controller might appeal to a certain crowd, perhaps a minority crowd, and thus achieve 'niche' status.
Also, what has been proven is that Nintendo games sell on Nintendo consoles and that's about it. Third parties just don't get the same success of Playstation or Xbox games on the Gamecube with the exception of a few, namely Sega with their Sonic titles. Nintendo fans buy Nintendo consoles for Nintendo made games = niche product. That's my logic anyway.
Quote:Even worse are the people who say Nintendo is doomed to go the way of Sega... but they have no understanding of the concept of "money" or the fact that Nintendo makes quite a good amount of it. :)
If Nintendo doesn't manage to reel in a new crowd, and perhaps alienate their longtime fans with this new controller (I'm not sold yet, in case you couldn't tell), then they won't be making any money.
I think it's far too early to make a call concerning Nintendo's fate, but if the trend of the past few years is any telltale sign then these analyst speculations aren't totally unwarranted.
Quote:Also, what has been proven is that Nintendo games sell on Nintendo consoles and that's about it. Third parties just don't get the same success of Playstation or Xbox games on the Gamecube with the exception of a few, namely Sega with their Sonic titles. Nintendo fans by Nintendo consoles for Nintendo made games = niche product. That's my logic anyway.
You're ignoring the fact that Nintendo is publishing market-expanding titles as well, though. Do you really think that the main market for Brain Training and Nintendogs is longtime Nintendo fans? Of course not. They're trying to both please their base (which I'm sure they will do, and will make them a decent amount of money) and expand the market, which is less certain but I'm hopeful. Even if they aren't as successful at that as they wish, though (not something I'm going to conceed yet, certainly), though, there is no way they will lose money. Between GBA, DS, the next Gameboy, and the fact that all they'd have to do to make money is do worse than they did this generation (and that would be hard to do), that's just not going to happen.
And anyway, remember how Nintendo has said that they'd never publish games for other platforms? They're stubborn, I believe them... they wouldn't do that.
Quote:I think it's far too early to make a call concerning Nintendo's fate, but if the trend of the past few years is any telltale sign then these analyst speculations aren't totally unwarranted.
How about the trend of the current year, with the massive success of the DS and the continued spectacular preformance of the GBA? :)
A Black Falcon Wrote:You're ignoring the fact that Nintendo is publishing market-expanding titles as well, though. Do you really think that the main market for Brain Training and Nintendogs is longtime Nintendo fans? Of course not. They're trying to both please their base (which I'm sure they will do, and will make them a decent amount of money) and expand the market, which is less certain but I'm hopeful. Even if they aren't as successful at that as they wish, though (not something I'm going to conceed yet, certainly), though, there is no way they will lose money. Between GBA, DS, the next Gameboy, and the fact that all they'd have to do to make money is do worse than they did this generation (and that would be hard to do), that's just not going to happen.
And anyway, remember how Nintendo has said that they'd never publish games for other platforms? They're stubborn, I believe them... they wouldn't do that.
If they lose market share then their profits will be less than they were years previous, and to me that's the same as losing money.
The DS is still very new and I'm still not entirely convinced it's a mainstay product for years to come. It has a respectable base at the moment, and is doing especially well in Japan, but I'm curious to see how long it sticks around. What will the introduction of the new Gameboy do to it? I hope it does well as I'm enjoying it quite a bit, but I wish there were more games available for it and ones that took advantage of the touch screen.
The Revolution is just entirely unproven at this point. I'm not prepared to speculate on it. There is a chance it might not appeal to the new crowd Nintendo wants and old time Nintendo fans might not be able to sustain it. Virtual Boy anyone? When the next Mario, Zelda, Metroid, and Animal Crossing are shown, and we're given some insight as to how they'll interact with the controller, I'll be better prepared to give my take on it. Until then...
I remember Nintendo saying they'd never make games for other platforms, and that's why I wish them much success. I'd miss games like Animal Crossing, Metroid, and Mario quite a bit.
Quote:How about the trend of the current year, with the massive success of the DS and the continued spectacular preformance of the GBA? :)
I kind of addressed this above. It's a relatively new situation and I hope it marks a turning point for Nintendo. I want to see how much staying power these new innovations have, to see if the public really buys in to them.
Quote:If they lose market share then their profits will be less than they were years previous, and to me that's the same as losing money.
No, it's making less money... "profits are down" is different from "we are losing money". I'd say 'losing money' is making negative money... like MS on the Xbox. :) The danger is of course that if profits continue to fall you could eventually lose money, but just 'profits are lower' is different.
Quote:The DS is still very new and I'm still not entirely convinced it's a mainstay product for years to come. It has a respectable base at the moment, and is doing especially well in Japan, but I'm curious to see how long it sticks around. What will the introduction of the new Gameboy do to it? I hope it does well as I'm enjoying it quite a bit, but I wish there were more games available for it and ones that took advantage of the touch screen.
Being out for a year and being more successful now than at any point since launch isn't enough for you? What would be, then? Anything? It has more than proven that it's not just a gimmick, that's for sure...
As for games that use the touchscreen, we have a good number. Pac Pix, Pac n Roll, Yoshi Touch n Go, Kirby Canvass Curse, Advance Wars, Nintendogs, Feel the Magic, WarioWare... etc... yes, some use it for less, but it's not the best control input type for all games. For the ones it helps, or the ones that have innovated to show how much it's possible of (Kirby, for instance), it's made a big difference...
And remember, it's a new kind of input device for consoles. It takes a while for developers to come to understand it. Yes, there was a lull after launch, but then the situation began to get better, and that will just continue as developers figure out what touchscreen ideas work and which don't... (Revolution might go similarly... it all depends on Nintendo's first party stuff. I would expect more complete titles from Nintendo (as opposed to the sometimes short-and-single-concept stuff we've gotten on DS) because major consoles get bigger budget games, but for third parties it might take longer. Oh well, that's what you get for innovation...
Quote:The Revolution is just entirely unproven at this point. I'm not prepared to speculate on it. There is a chance it might not appeal to the new crowd Nintendo wants and old time Nintendo fans might not be able to sustain it. Virtual Boy anyone? When the next Mario, Zelda, Metroid, and Animal Crossing are shown, and we're given some insight as to how they'll interact with the controller, I'll be better prepared to give my take on it. Until then...
You're not prepared to speculate, yet you'll happily indulge in plenty of speculation about how Nintendo is going to fail because of the policies that led to the Revolution? Riight... Comparing it to the VB just proves my point... only people really trying to attack Nintendo would compare this to that. Nobody liked the VB, Nintendo fans or otherwise... and it had a total of fourteen games released for it. Somehow, I doubt that Revolution will have any grounds for comparison there... the DS would be a much better comparison, certainly. But that would actually show Nintendo in a good light, so you won't do that...
If your coffers are constantly rising in cash, even if the flow slows, you are still making money, not loosing it. What is the difference? Well, do you really even NEED that much money? I don't think it's that important.
The difference is the sort that a poor person would have to beat INTO Paco. The difference is people who are loosing money wouldn't MIND constantly rising funds at a slow rate. When that is the case, they aren't worried about starving EVER AGAIN.
A Black Falcon Wrote:No, it's making less money... "profits are down" is different from "we are losing money". I'd say 'losing money' is making negative money... like MS on the Xbox. :) The danger is of course that if profits continue to fall you could eventually lose money, but just 'profits are lower' is different.
I can agree with that.
Quote:Being out for a year and being more successful now than at any point since launch isn't enough for you? What would be, then? Anything? It has more than proven that it's not just a gimmick, that's for sure...
There have been other consoles that stayed around longer than a year but eventually dropped out due to a lack of support.
If the DS is still selling strong this time next year, and after the next Gameboy is out, then it's proven, imo. We'll have to wait and see.
Quote:As for games that use the touchscreen, we have a good number. Pac Pix, Pac n Roll, Yoshi Touch n Go, Kirby Canvass Curse, Advance Wars, Nintendogs, Feel the Magic, WarioWare... etc... yes, some use it for less, but it's not the best control input type for all games. For the ones it helps, or the ones that have innovated to show how much it's possible of (Kirby, for instance), it's made a big difference...
I'm well aware of how many games use the touch screen, as I keep up with the DS quite a bit. What's wrong with wanting more?
Quote:And remember, it's a new kind of input device for consoles. It takes a while for developers to come to understand it. Yes, there was a lull after launch, but then the situation began to get better, and that will just continue as developers figure out what touchscreen ideas work and which don't... (Revolution might go similarly... it all depends on Nintendo's first party stuff. I would expect more complete titles from Nintendo (as opposed to the sometimes short-and-single-concept stuff we've gotten on DS) because major consoles get bigger budget games, but for third parties it might take longer. Oh well, that's what you get for innovation...
I like how you continually paint a picture of roses and sunshine for Nintendo but dump on Microsoft at every chance.
From what I can tell, the third parties aren't really taking advantage of the touch screen feature. Nintendo is the one driving that ship, the third parties not so much. Sega have been pretty supportive, but I wish there were more. It's getting better though, Mistwalker just announced a new game for the DS. A game from the creator of the Final Fantasy series and director of one of my favorite RPGs of all time, Chrono Trigger. I'll take it!
There have been major third parties (Konami, THQ) already saying they will support the Revolution, so that's good, but I want to see to what extent. I was just as skeptical when Microsoft said they had so many developers on board, but now I've seen or heard of the 160+ titles announced thus far.
Quote:You're not prepared to speculate, yet you'll happily indulge in plenty of speculation about how Nintendo is going to fail because of the policies that led to the Revolution? Riight... Comparing it to the VB just proves my point... only people really trying to attack Nintendo would compare this to that. Nobody liked the VB, Nintendo fans or otherwise... and it had a total of fourteen games released for it. Somehow, I doubt that Revolution will have any grounds for comparison there... the DS would be a much better comparison, certainly. But that would actually show Nintendo in a good light, so you won't do that...
How they could fail, or how they could grab a new audience. I've left my arguement open for both scenarios. I'm trying to be objective and you don't like it. Fact is that Nintendo doesn't have great third party support and their fanbase has been dwindling over the past few years; just accept that and you're well on your way to understanding where the hell I'm coming from. Nintendo is taking a risk with the new controller, a gamble, and it could go either way.
I've already acknowledged the DS's success, and applaud Nintendo for taking such a risk and having the pay-off. I'm merely allowing my arguement to be open in such a case that in the coming years the excitement for it goes wayward. It's a possibility. Most recently the Gamecube has been on the decline for a while now. I believe it was Nintendo who said that things were going to change with the Gamecube, that they learned from their mistakes. I don't need to tell you for the umpteenth time (or do I?) that they have lost more third party support and market share with the Gamecube. (But if you want to count the handhelds and make everything seem just peachy then do it. Whatever helps you sleep at night.)
The Virtual Boy was something new, and it was something that didn't quite catch on. I had a friend who loved it, btw. It just goes to show that Nintendo is not infallible.
I still think you're thinking in extremes, and I'm going to ask you to stop, again. I have not outright said that Nintendo is going to fail, or that they'll enjoy huge success. I've been trying to only justify why these analyst aren't idiots, and that there is a possibility Nintendo could lose more market share. On the same token I've said they could enjoy success with a new crowd and possibly sustain their long-time fans (or alienate them). I just don't know, and whether you like it or not you don't know either.
If you can point out where I explicitly said, or otherwise implied, that Nintendo
will go one way or the other then by all means point it out to me, and I'll happily revoke it.
And not to dump on anyone, but Paxter actually came up with a touch screen for gaming before the DS came out. Now, Paxter didn't actually make any good games, and it was more or less a Tiger electronics toy. I'm just putting it out there.
Looks like a missed most of the argument.
Paco your opinions are all based on what if scenarios and more 'the sky is falling' bullshit. I'm not trying to start up another argument, just think about this logically: It is the first video game controller to actual 3-D control for 3-D gaming. Dont like the remote design? Third party game not made to take advantage of it? Pop it in a Wavebird, your Game Cube styled-controller is now a traditional controller with full 3-D range of movement... for 3-D games... how ANYONE could be against this is beyond me.
This is the next logical leap from 2-D d-pads and anal sticks to 3-D fully immersive controllers. It was bound to happen.
Now I will totally agree with you that Nintendo's losing third parties. That is a fact. But it's not because those third parties feel that Nintendo is a niche market. Anyone being able to sell hundreds of thousands to tens of millions of their product worldwide decade after decade is not a niche market. When Nintendo shows off 4 pictures of a new Zelda game and the entire industry stops to look, it is definitely not a niche market.
However, what has happened is that Nintendo is no longer a formidable image for the two most important demographics in the past decade:
#1.) Pre-teen to young adult. The people who will sell their mothers for plasma screens and cellphones or whatever expensive, status ranking piece of electronic consumerism they can get fit in to the basement of their parent's house.
#2.) People who never owned a video game system and are in their mid 20's to late 30's. People who wanted another little gadget to waste time with, nothing special, a quick 5 minute run through a FPS before hitting the hay. These people buy one video game system per generation and one game every 6 months. They dont post on message boards, they dont look up anything on Gamefaqs, they could give a shit less about the industry: They just want to waste a few minutes between important things in their lives.
They dont buy much, but the sheer numbers of these people are staggering. These people own a PS2, a few have an XBox. None of them have both. But when you have an entire country filled with them you're guaranteed to push sales as an 'executive toy' in the millions.
Nintendo also notices that trend and whoosh, the GBMicro. Everyone I know who plays video games calls it a total waste. Everyone I know who never plays video games imediately want one at first sight.
They dont know what game to get, they nothing about video games: So they buy the game with the best looking art on the cover. It's a strange phenomenon. Sony capatalized on this: in fact sony is why this new demographic exists. That demographic are being called the anti-nerds (we're the nerds who debate over games, study them, read reviews before buying, etc).
Sadly, the number of nerds (us) and the number of anti-nerds has a strong leader... the anti-nerds. Why? Because most people just dont care about video games beyond that 15 minute push and at the most, an hour long 4 player time-killer.
Companies are making oodles and oodles of money out of this: It's like the 8-bit days when people bought a video game because the story on the back of the box was cool, or the art on the box had a half-naked girl. These people are anti-nerds but they're also anti-productive. That's why Nintendo keeps saying 'we're worried about the industry" - Because the vast majority of those people aren't going to carry in to next gen. They may drop it completely, decide that video games are too expensive for a hobby or just lose interest. They will never have sway towards a certain manufacturer or company, they will never decide that X company is the best or worst because they simply dont care. That market is called a dead end. get the money from them now because it wont be there later.
That is a niche market.
Then the teens and early adults. Well thats where we were, remember? Having debates about Super Mario bros not being as good as Alex Kid and getting in fights over who invented the invincibility ability, etc. And that's what's happening right now between the nerds who have a PS2 and those who have XBox and those who have both. But where's the talk about Nintendo? it's not there, you'll only find it in places like this, among the 'older' gamers who have been playing since the early 80's, people who dont fall in sony's and MS's marketing demographics. We're not 'hArDc0R111' or XTREM' or anything else you want to label. We just want good mind altering dru... games that we can escape in to for hours at a time.
People who handle the money in this industry are thinking this; "So it's just Sony and MS as far as big business (third parties) is concerned, I want to make money and nobody in my primary demographics that this game is for (read: shit game programed by 'DJ Nizzle and 'Yo, Fucka Studios') talks about Nintendo.
Nintendo has lost its cool factor. But there's a second, much more important part to this. There's a definite reason Nintendo lost it's cool factor and it has nothing to do with Nintendo or Sony, or MS or anything in this industry- It's because we, the nerds, wont buy krappy games.
Sony uncorked a magical flowing river of money and now that Sony is about to enter it's 3rd system (and MS its 2nd) business's want to capatalize and turn the highest profit... they see Sony reaping the most buzz and media with MS right behind and they want to be a part of that. Everyone and their dog and Moses has a PS2. ***I*** have a PS2, you cant help it, everyone is jumping off a bridge and no one wants to be left out. It's like one of those noodle-grabbing utensils that look like sexual aids. You will can go through life never using it and yet everyone owns one.
So... why is that?
Think about this for a moment. It's so logical it's stupid:
Q: Who are the people that buy Nintendo systems and games?
A: Video game vets, people who know the difference between a crash Bandicoot game and a Mario game - People who can see programing flaws, read reviews, understand what makes a game a good game and they know that Nintendo consistently does this.
Q: Why is the GameCube failing to take the #1 spot world-wide or in America?
A: Nintendo lost the "it" factor, causing sales from other demographics to plateu. Why: Lack of third parties since N64 mid-life. (Sony having ALL 3rd party support by that point)
Q: Why has Nintendo lost 3rd parties since N64?
A: Two major reasons, CD's are cheaper than carts and third parties found that games released on Nintendo systems do not sell well and over time, opted for Playstation or XBox, often times ignoring Gamecube despite it having an installed user base greater than the XBox (so says Nintendo's website and MS's).
Q: What is the majority of third parties business model and product?
A: Quickly manufactured games to capalize on current trends. Ie. TV shows, films, comics, books, music, topical genres (sports, war sims) etc.
So you have a consumer in this corner, one who likes Nintendo. Every Nintendo game they buy is above average, everything is working and bug-free. On top of that, the games are timeless and can be enjoyed for months if not years before growing stale - this is not opinion, all industry leaders praise Nintendo for their games. Simply put; the best games on the market.
In the other corner you have a consumer that will buy a game regardless of the company that made it. They own a PS2, they'll get any game if the cover art is decent or if it has a dark, mature theme that doesn't make them (a 12 year old) feel like a ...11 year old. They will buy any game, from any publisher, from any company.
Now here's Mr. Game Designer/Producer who just got done coding 'Ass on top of Ass: Asscrackistan'. A quickly manufactured game based on a movie that's about to hit theaters. If you were to compare this game to a good one, your brain would litteraly melt and you would die.
...which consumer are you going to try and sell it to? The "educated" one (if you can call it that) or the guy who buys anything regardless?
I'll tell you exactly what you do, you make an ad campaign that shows the high points of your game that are often either fabricated, embelished or at the very least sugar coated with tons o'production value in the 30 second commercial.
THIS SUMMER
ASS
ASS
ASSCRACKISTAN!!!!
*explosion*
261 WEAPONS!
MULTIPLAYER MAYHEM!
ONLINE DEATHMATCH MODE MAKE YOUR SISTER CRY!
4,000 LEVELS OF IN-YOUR-FACE TWISTED GORISH HELL!
KILL JESUS, EAT WOMEN, MICROWAVE YOUR NEIGHBOR'S DOG!
*punch-line in the ad that has nothing to do with the game but gets you to laugh and usually involves someone being killed by flaming death*
RATED M FOR *MACHO*!!!!!!
Now, when we were kids, we didnt have ads like this... we had ads like... well I think I put a mental block on them, but they were bad ...and boring. But if I saw this ad when i was 12 I would have ejaculated all over the living room followed by a shrieking begging noise for my parents to buy me this game... only to be severly disappointed when I got home with it.
But the point is, the reason the 3rd parties are jumping on to Sony and MS is because poop does not sell well among people who have noses... wait i think I messed that proverb up... You get the idea.
You can debate this if you want, but regardless of whether you agree or not, this is exactly what's happening. And it will continue to do so until consumers stop letting companies dupe them in to buying Asscrackistan and all its sequels.
lazyfatbum Wrote:Paco your opinions are all based on what if scenarios and more 'the sky is falling' bullshit. I'm not trying to start up another argument, just think about this logically: It is the first video game controller to actual 3-D control for 3-D gaming. Dont like the remote design? Third party game not made to take advantage of it? Pop it in a Wavebird, your Game Cube styled-controller is now a traditional controller with full 3-D range of movement... for 3-D games... how ANYONE could be against this is beyond me.
Two things.
I've made every attempt to keep my views as a what if arguement as there is every possibility things could go horribly wrong, fantastically good, or land somewhere inbetween. My speculation, or my 'the sky is falling bullshit' is a possibility, and on the other hand there is every chance that Nintendo could surprise us all with some kind of amazing comeback. I just don't know, and that's why I won't take a solid stance on the issue.
From what I understand all Revolution games will use the new controller, no exceptions (from what I've read, I could be entirely wrong). And the wavebird, or any other controller, will be accessories. Last I checked there hasn't been a huge blockbuster that required an accessory, and don't take for granted that everyone who buys a Revolution has a wavebird or GC controller.
I'm not against the new controller, I'm just not sold on it yet. I've read positive impressions on it from numerous sources (game developers) but they don't always know what the masses want.
Quote:This is the next logical leap from 2-D d-pads and anal sticks to 3-D fully immersive controllers. It was bound to happen.
Is it necessary? Is it fun? Is it better? These are questions I have, and ones that will determine whether or not the concept of the new controller stick around.
Quote:Companies are making oodles and oodles of money out of this: It's like the 8-bit days when people bought a video game because the story on the back of the box was cool, or the art on the box had a half-naked girl. These people are anti-nerds but they're also anti-productive. That's why Nintendo keeps saying 'we're worried about the industry" - Because the vast majority of those people aren't going to carry in to next gen. They may drop it completely, decide that video games are too expensive for a hobby or just lose interest. They will never have sway towards a certain manufacturer or company, they will never decide that X company is the best or worst because they simply dont care. That market is called a dead end. get the money from them now because it wont be there later.
What do you mean the vast majority won't carry over into next gen? It looks like Sony has managed to gain most of their Playstation users back for round 2, and I bet you they'll be back for round 3.
As for the rest of your arguement I agree for the most part. However I think you're shortchaning the consumer and developers when you talk about third party games. The majority of them are more educated than you think and there are alot of great third party games that still don't sell well on Nintendo consoles. There is a bunch of crap, I can't argue with that, but I want to remind you it's been that way since even since the NES.
I have to go to class right now, and I will continue this when I have time.
...A real debate?? No flaming "you're an idiot" posts?? Woohoo! :D
Quote:From what I understand all Revolution games will use the new controller, no exceptions (from what I've read, I could be entirely wrong). And the wavebird, or any other controller, will be accessories. Last I checked there hasn't been a huge blockbuster that required an accessory, and don't take for granted that everyone who buys a Revolution has a wavebird or GC controller.
I think you already know this, but the 'shell' is basically a GC controller with a slot for the remote, it's wireless as well that's why I called it wavebird-like. All games from Nintendo (and hopefully 3rd parties) will be using the remote's 3-D functionality
I say this with confidence because you cant help but marvel at the idea of controlling something in full 3-D; Every genre under the sun will benefit from it even if it's wasted for controlling the camera in a 3rd person game. But it goes much, much deeper than that. All you need to do is imagine a genre, like a Starfox game, and imagine controlling your Arwing ...with your hand. Not huge movements (unless you're avoiding a wall), just small movements from the wrist to turn, bank, roll, climb, etc.
And because all or most games will be taking advantage of that, Nintendo gives the player the option of using the remote or sliding it in the GC-like controller. All the same functionality is there, you can play Starfox exactly the same way by moving your controller to simulate the control of the ship, but now it's in the shell of a GC controller with more buttons and a more traditional sense of gaming.
It wont be 'This game requires a shell to play' (unless it's a specific game, like a music game or something whacky), any game that uses the 3-D control can be played with the remote or in the shell, it's not a one or the other thing. It's not an add-on or a peripheral, it's an option for developers and game players to choose what feels best for them depending on the game they play.
The new football game has 3-D functionality, so do you want to use the remote/stick setup or use the shell? Your choice. Just like games that ask you if you want to turn 'rumble' on or off, it will ask you (or detect) what setup you want to use.
I have no doubt in my mind that most 3rd parties will opt for the shell design. And at first, the 3-D functionality will be wasted on the camera movement like I said. Look at the 3rd parties on DS, they were (some still are) releasing games for it that dont use the touch screen at all! But slowly they're experimenting and trying things out and we end up with gems on DS outside the Nintendo camp. And the same 'transitional period' will happen on Revolution.
The question i'm wondering is, the shell; will it come with the Revolution in the box, or do I need to buy it seperately. Nintendo has already hinted that many of it's d/l games will be "updated". In the TGS video, you can hear that people are playing the original Mario Bros with the remote, jumping by flicking the remote controller up. But you also have SNES and N64 games that need a more traditional controller... They could still benefit from the 3-D functionality, but they need the 'pad' design (or an overhaul in the control scheme, which could happen if a developer wants their older game updated for the Rev controller). So i'm thinking, based on that alone, Nintendo will include one Remote controller with a traditional controller shell in the box.
And of course, Nintendo themselves said "We haven't shown everything about the controller or system yet." And the controller could go through some minor and major changes before we see it again.
Just keep in mind that there has never been a bad Nintendo-made controller. Every controller that Nintendo has made has caused the industry to change. D-pads, shoulder buttons, anal sticks, rumble paks, wireless, you name it Nintendo did it so you shouldn't be too worried about it being poop. They know what they're doing.
lazyfatbum Wrote:...A real debate?? No flaming "you're an idiot" posts?? Woohoo! :D
Not at all. I enjoyed your post quite a bit.
Quote:I think you already know this, but the 'shell' is basically a GC controller with a slot for the remote, it's wireless as well that's why I called it wavebird-like. All games from Nintendo (and hopefully 3rd parties) will be using the remote's 3-D functionality
I say this with confidence because you cant help but marvel at the idea of controlling something in full 3-D; Every genre under the sun will benefit from it even if it's wasted for controlling the camera in a 3rd person game. But it goes much, much deeper than that. All you need to do is imagine a genre, like a Starfox game, and imagine controlling your Arwing ...with your hand. Not huge movements (unless you're avoiding a wall), just small movements from the wrist to turn, bank, roll, climb, etc.
And because all or most games will be taking advantage of that, Nintendo gives the player the option of using the remote or sliding it in the GC-like controller. All the same functionality is there, you can play Starfox exactly the same way by moving your controller to simulate the control of the ship, but now it's in the shell of a GC controller with more buttons and a more traditional sense of gaming.
It wont be 'This game requires a shell to play' (unless it's a specific game, like a music game or something whacky), any game that uses the 3-D control can be played with the remote or in the shell, it's not a one or the other thing. It's not an add-on or a peripheral, it's an option for developers and game players to choose what feels best for them depending on the game they play.
The new football game has 3-D functionality, so do you want to use the remote/stick setup or use the shell? Your choice. Just like games that ask you if you want to turn 'rumble' on or off, it will ask you (or detect) what setup you want to use.
I have no doubt in my mind that most 3rd parties will opt for the shell design. And at first, the 3-D functionality will be wasted on the camera movement like I said. Look at the 3rd parties on DS, they were (some still are) releasing games for it that dont use the touch screen at all! But slowly they're experimenting and trying things out and we end up with gems on DS outside the Nintendo camp. And the same 'transitional period' will happen on Revolution.
The question i'm wondering is, the shell; will it come with the Revolution in the box, or do I need to buy it seperately. Nintendo has already hinted that many of it's d/l games will be "updated". In the TGS video, you can hear that people are playing the original Mario Bros with the remote, jumping by flicking the remote controller up. But you also have SNES and N64 games that need a more traditional controller... They could still benefit from the 3-D functionality, but they need the 'pad' design (or an overhaul in the control scheme, which could happen if a developer wants their older game updated for the Rev controller). So i'm thinking, based on that alone, Nintendo will include one Remote controller with a traditional controller shell in the box.
Yes, yes. I've thought about all this and it comes down to the same question you have; will the shell come with the Revolution or not? If it does then I really can't see a negative for Nintendo, the system will be more dynamic and, imo, be better for it. All my concerns stem from the possibility that it won't come with the shell and I'll be forced (for lack of a better word) to play all Revolution games with the new controller. I willing to try a new Zelda, Mario, and Metroid but I'd be comforted to know there's a possibility of getting those games in the same vein I've come to know them on a control scheme I'm used to (is the shell included and will it be utilized by Nintendo, or will they drive solely in the new direction?). I say this without knowing the full extent of the new controllers' function and have no idea just what the developers have in mind for it. Perhaps it will allow for similar gameplay style, but maybe not. I could love it, or I could hate it. I wouldn't know because I've never played a game with anything like it. Do you see why I refuse to take a side on this?!
On the same token, I want a bigger and more diverse library of games. That can only occur given a healthy lineup of interested third parties.
Quote:And of course, Nintendo themselves said "We haven't shown everything about the controller or system yet." And the controller could go through some minor and major changes before we see it again.
I'm waiting, and curious.
Quote:Just keep in mind that there has never been a bad Nintendo-made controller. Every controller that Nintendo has made has caused the industry to change. D-pads, shoulder buttons, anal sticks, rumble paks, wireless, you name it Nintendo did it so you shouldn't be too worried about it being poop. They know what they're doing.
I suppose that depends who you talk to. I know many people who just don't like the Gamecube controller (the biggest complaint is that it's too small), and I'm not sure it brought anything new to video game scene.
I know Nintendo received some backlash for their controllers (namely the N64 and GC controllers) from developers, but the complaints have been minimal and are mostly caused by the button layout. Miyamoto said it himself that the N64 controller was designed specifically for Mario 64. That does reinforce the notion that Nintendo doesn't always act with everyone else in mind, such has been the case with different formats as well, and it does tend to alienate game developers. What of everyone else who wants to make games for the Nintendo console? Can Nintendo win back third parties to create a more desireable console, one that doesn't primarily feature Nintendo made games?
Meh, we'll see soon enough I suppose.
Quote:What do you mean the vast majority won't carry over into next gen? It looks like Sony has managed to gain most of their Playstation users back for round 2, and I bet you they'll be back for round 3.
I wish I could remember where I read it, but at the time it was on multiple game news sites. But basically the vast majority of people who bought a PS2 (from launch to the time of the article a few months ago) were newcomers.
This didn't surprise me, most of the people who bought a SNES were newcomers. I agree that ATLEAST half the PS2 owners will get a PS3, most likely more than that (Sony, without question, is on fire right now) But the majority of casual gamers, Sony's bread and butter, are not in to the politics of gaming.
Like I said, they dont care about reading a review, looking for polished games or looking for specific developers or publishers; They'll go wherever the games with the "it" factor are - If their friends talk about, if it's mentioned on the Daily Show, if the commercial is awesome, they'll be ready and waiting money-in-hand. In otherwords, if the PS3 losses popularity most people in the Sony camp (casual gamers) will drop it like it's hot and either quit gaming all together or get the system that does have the 'it' factor - The same games, the same publishers, just different consoles. This is extremely frightening to people in this industry, because that's exactly what happened when the industry crashed in the late 70's and early 80's.
There will of course be hardcore fans of Sony, but hardcore Nintendo fans have the numbers that Sony does not. I expect that to change with PS3, but i'm not sure how it will change. There's only two schools of thinking on the matter: It will be great or it will suck hard. Some people cant wait, and some people are jumping off of Sony's boat like it's sinking. Only time will tell what the outcome will be but it's completely grey right now.
Perhaps, Sony's membership fee of 16 million PLUS development costs will ensure quality games. But they're going to destroy the very market they thrive in, the one they created, by doing so. All those people who just want the new Harry Potter game or the sports game with updated roster or that game with the hot chick on the box are going to be left in the cold if the devs who manufacture these games dont want to pay the membership fee.
Come to think of it, the tables are turning. Sony is going the route of 'It must be sparkly expensive goodness' and Nintendo is saying 'We're cheaper to dev for, bring on the garage games!'
It's going to be very, very interesting. But in regards to your question, I was talking more specifically about the mentality of the consumers and how that "it" factor can be extremely messy when you're talking about a $10 billion+ a year industry that could lose it's bottom very quickly if the majority of it's base are casual who buy a game based on how much media buzz it gets. Popularity is a factor that no company can generate directly (though they try), it's entirely in the hands of consumers, and right now, if popularity for Sony bottomed out (dont think it cant happen), the entire industry would fall.
It would be like if Japan had a stock market crash, the entire world would feel it.
Quote:there is every chance that Nintendo could surprise us all with some kind of amazing comeback.
Comeback from what? Lack of popularity? That's not entirely Nintendo's fault, that's up to consumers. I know you're not talking about money... Nintendo makes money regardless of anything. It's a company that is over 100 years old, they could shut down all video game manufacturing and still be making money. But despite the lack of popularity among key demographics, they're still #2 worldwide. Did you watch the E3 video? I did some research on that pie chart, Nintendo seriously has 90% of the market counting all consoles and more importantly all handhelds. Kids at the mall talk shit about Nintendo and how Sony is so much better but Sony or MS could only dream of having the piece of pie that Nintendo has. Maybe another 4 or 5 generations from now, but no time soon.