Nintendo Revolution: the cheap and powerful alternative...

Qwerty 42 · Post by **Qwerty 42** » 2005-12-08 05:11pm

Nintendo did say they were trying for a global simultaneous launch somewhere, if I recall. It would be everywhere within 8 weeks of the Japanese launch.

Vendetta · Post by **Vendetta** » 2005-12-08 07:17pm

They'll probably try it, with likely the same result as the X360. Get the system out, but with limited initial numbers in each territory. Even at a lower price point, they will be working on how many people might actually buy the system, rather than how many they can afford to build and ship.

Dooey Jo · Post by **Dooey Jo** » 2005-12-08 07:38pm

The Kernel wrote:The GBA not only has a huge install base, but it is a 2D platform with relatively simple game designs.

Do you mean that the game designs of GBA games are simpler than for other consoles? How so? Or do you mean that many games for the GBA are simple one-month-development-time titles (which I might agree with)?

Don't bet on it simply because of a low price. The Gamecube also drastically undersold its comptetitors, does that mean it is hugely popular? Hell, it is at $99 right now, yet I don't see it selling in huge numbers.

There are many reasons why the GC isn't selling in huge quantities now, which would not apply to Revolution. Revolution will, for instance, not be four years old when it's released...

There is no way that Nintendo is going to touch the sales numbers of the PS2 and it is extremely unlikely that it will reach X360 numbers in anywhere but Japan.

Says who, and why?

And as far as third parties go, by all indications Nintendo is actually losing third parties compared to the dismal Gamecube generation. Capcom is pulling Resident Evil as an exclusive (and by the looks of things, as a game for Revolution at all) and with the differences between the Revolution and the X360/PS3, devs would have to spend more money on ports for a system that will likely have a smaller install base.

And if it actually does manage to appeal to the general population, as Nintendo have said they intend to do? You are assuming the games played on Revolution are going to be the same games, or at least the same type of games, you play on your Xbox, or whatever, today. If that is the case, then yes, it probably won't sell very well.

Nintendo says over and over that they don't intend to compete with the 360 and PS3, but reach to a broader audience and not only your average gamer. But you think that they are going to fail at this? Why?

Nintendo could combat this by offering incentives to devs like Microsoft and Sony do, but they won't because unlike MS and Sony, Nintendo sees devs as their comptetition rather than an asset. Nintendo is a games company, not a hardware company, it's the games that give them their strength. In their minds, any game that sells for their system that isn't one of theirs is taking away sales from a Mario, Zelda or Metroid game.

Don't be ridiculous! Do you think Nintendo leaves developers in the dark on how to develop for their consoles? That they have to figure everything out on their own? And they even have third-parties developing some of those very Zelda and Mario games for crying out loud! Competition indeed

Don't kid yourself, everyone around here loved the Gamecube too, does that mean it was a commercial success?

Uh-huh, you know, I put that yellow winky thing there for a reason. I didn't think anyone would actually take it seriously, but I put it there anyway...
(There's always someone, of course)

Need some tissues?

I'd write something witty, but I don't really give a shit.
If Revolution does appeal to the "mainstream" it is obviously going to get a huge amount of potential buyers of games, easily rivalling the 360 and PS3. And certainly, the price is not going to be a disadvantage to achieving that goal. Certain developers try to appeal to as many as possible, and if Revolution gets the largest user base, then they will write their games primarily for it. Please tell me what part it is you're wanking off to.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2005-12-08 07:57pm

Dooey Jo wrote: Do you mean that the game designs of GBA games are simpler than for other consoles? How so? Or do you mean that many games for the GBA are simple one-month-development-time titles (which I might agree with)?

Both. 2D games don't require the same sort of assets, nor do they require anywhere near the sort of depth or scale considering their paltry cartridge size.

There are many reasons why the GC isn't selling in huge quantities now, which would not apply to Revolution. Revolution will, for instance, not be four years old when it's released...

That reason is bullshit, the PSOne sold like hotcakes at $99 and it was also four years old at the time it was released.

Says who, and why?

Says just about every analyst out there, and because Nintendo doesn't have the same strengths as MS and Sony. Do you want a fucking dissertation on the matter or could you take a look at the last two generations of game consoles and figure it out yourself?

Put simply though it has to do with three main reasons:

1) Bad corporate strategy--Nintendo is strong as a games company, not a hardware company. If they wanted to make a smart business decision they'd either pull a Sega and do games exclusively (at least in the home sector, their portable hardware unit is successful and should remain) or sell themselves to Sony or Microsoft (Microsoft would be the better choice as they could both afford Nintendo, and would be willing to pay handsomely for them).

2) No deep pockets--Nintendo is very successful as a games company, but they don't have the other divisions to both financially support them and to offer diversity in other areas. Their portable division is all that kept them afloat during the Gamecube era, without it they would be in serious financial trouble today. Microsoft on the other hand can afford to lose hundreds of millions of dollars a year on their games division and not even notice.

3) Terrible Third Party Support--Nintendo doesn't give third party games the same push they give to their own titles. Microsoft and Sony take the oppositte approach pushing the games that get the biggest buzz regardless of ownership rights.

And if it actually does manage to appeal to the general population, as Nintendo have said they intend to do? You are assuming the games played on Revolution are going to be the same games, or at least the same type of games, you play on your Xbox, or whatever, today. If that is the case, then yes, it probably won't sell very well.

And who is going to make these games? Nintendo? They don't have the capacity to support a console by themselves. They needs companies like EA to provide a sports line (which are huge sellers), they needs licensed games (which are often poor, but they pay the bills) and they need the occassional third party hit that comes along. Nintendo doesn't have any of this right now, we don't even know if EA is going to give Nintendo full platform support.

Nintendo says over and over that they don't intend to compete with the 360 and PS3, but reach to a broader audience and not only your average gamer. But you think that they are going to fail at this? Why?

Whether they admit it or not, Nintendo is competing with MS and Sony. Whether or not they are financially successful is the only goal that matters, and they won't be able to do that with a 10% market share.

Don't be ridiculous! Do you think Nintendo leaves developers in the dark on how to develop for their consoles? That they have to figure everything out on their own? And they even have third-parties developing some of those very Zelda and Mario games for crying out loud! Competition indeed

I can only assume you are an ignorant moron from this statement. When I say give devs support I am talking about giving them marketting support for their games.

I'd write something witty, but I don't really give a shit.
If Revolution does appeal to the "mainstream" it is obviously going to get a huge amount of potential buyers of games, easily rivalling the 360 and PS3.

Ignorant shit, this seems to be par for you. The "mainstream" are the people that buy the other game consoles you clod. Nintendo can harp all they want about "new markets" and "hyperactive synergy" but it doesn't mean shit unless they have actual proof that they can appeal to new markets. And you haven't provided shit on this subject.

And certainly, the price is not going to be a disadvantage to achieving that goal.

Yeah, cause the Gamecube was so much more when it was launched.

Certain developers try to appeal to as many as possible, and if Revolution gets the largest user base, then they will write their games primarily for it. Please tell me what part it is you're wanking off to.

Now THIS is wank. You think Nintendo will capture the majority of the market? Do you have any idea how much of it Sony owns right now? Nintendo can't even keep up with Microsoft worldwide despite a commanding lead in Japan and you think they can capture the world market?

Noble Ire · Post by **Noble Ire** » 2005-12-08 08:07pm

If it wasn't for Halo 3 and KOTOR 3 down the road, I'd definately be getting this. 360 news has been pretty unimpressive, but due to my limited budget and enjoyment of only a very few console games, I'll have to pass.

The Prime Necromancer · Post by **The Prime Necromancer** » 2005-12-08 08:17pm

Is the Revolution going to be backwards compatible with the Gamecube? I missed out this cycle, and there's several games I want to play on it. If the answer is yes, then between that and the low cost they'll have another sale.

Also, while not completely on topic, does anyone know if the PS3 is going to be compatible with PS2 *and* PS1 games?

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2005-12-08 08:21pm

The Prime Necromancer wrote:Is the Revolution going to be backwards compatible with the Gamecube? I missed out this cycle, and there's several games I want to play on it. If the answer is yes, then between that and the low cost they'll have another sale.

Yes. It will also be capable of downloading games from the cycles before the Cube. The pricing for that is disputed, but it will definately be a major feature that the Rev will play games going back to the NES(Not via cartridges, though).

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2005-12-08 08:26pm

SirNitram wrote: Yes. It will also be capable of downloading games from the cycles before the Cube. The pricing for that is disputed, but it will definately be a major feature that the Rev will play games going back to the NES(Not via cartridges, though).

Content oppressed. Good grief, Kernel, Discussion Of Illegal Activities! -SirNitram

The Prime Necromancer · Post by **The Prime Necromancer** » 2005-12-08 08:57pm

SirNitram wrote:Yes. It will also be capable of downloading games from the cycles before the Cube. The pricing for that is disputed, but it will definately be a major feature that the Rev will play games going back to the NES(Not via cartridges, though).

Ah, thank you. I had actually already known about the downloading past games, thanks to reading previous threads about the Revolution. I just didn't know whether or not it would be able to actually read GameCube discs.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2005-12-08 09:19pm

Nitram, SNES9x is not an illegal program. Nor is emulation unless it is emulating a non-freeware game. At no time did I ever make mention of non-freeware games.

I'm not trying to tell a mod how to do his job, I'm clarifying the law. Besides, if you own the original disc, the law does allow for backup content (as per fair use).

EDIT: The forum policy seem in line with what I am saying, particularly since I never provided a link or even any specific information.

Rules wrote: No Warez. Just so everyone understands, warez and pirating are illegal, so dont offer pirate copies of games or links to warez sites in threads. We dont need any trouble from such things so keep them away from the board. You may discuss the issue, of course, but keep actual links or advice on pirating or other IP-infringement off the board.

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2005-12-08 09:29pm

Nintendo has always given a priority to having relatively cheap-to-produce consoles. All game companies lose money on consoles, but Nintendo loses relatively less, which is part of why it's able to keep up with Microsoft and Sony despite lower home console market share. The other major part is, of course, handheld market share, which continues to be pretty massive despite the PSP.

Nintendo doesn't have any other divisions to take money away from to put into games, but then again it doesn't have to. To say that Nintendo isn't in "serious financial trouble" is a misleading understatement; their profits are comparable to, in some cases higher than, Microsoft's or Sony's respective game divisions. Nintendo won't become a third-party developer or sell out to another company any time soon; why would they need to?

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2005-12-08 09:33pm

Nintendo doesn't have any other divisions to take money away from to put into games, but then again it doesn't have to. To say that Nintendo isn't in "serious financial trouble" is a misleading understatement; their profits are comparable to, in some cases higher than, Microsoft's or Sony's respective game divisions. Nintendo won't become a third-party developer or sell out to another company any time soon; why would they need to?

They don't need to, but it would make smart financial sense today, and if they are ever pressured in the mobile sector, they might need to a lot more quickly. Their games division is profitable yes, but only on the strength of the GameBoy, not because of their home games division.

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2005-12-08 09:50pm

The Kernel wrote:
Nintendo doesn't have any other divisions to take money away from to put into games, but then again it doesn't have to. To say that Nintendo isn't in "serious financial trouble" is a misleading understatement; their profits are comparable to, in some cases higher than, Microsoft's or Sony's respective game divisions. Nintendo won't become a third-party developer or sell out to another company any time soon; why would they need to?
They don't need to, but it would make smart financial sense today, and if they are ever pressured in the mobile sector, they might need to a lot more quickly. Their games division is profitable yes, but only on the strength of the GameBoy, not because of their home games division.

If the PSP-a powerful system with all the marketing blitz Sony could muster-isn't able to put that pressure on Nintendo, I doubt anything will.

As for the home consoles, I don't think you quite understand the thinking behind the Revolution. When Nintendo says they won't compete with MS or Sony, they mean they won't fight for their parts of the market share. What they're aiming for is increasing the size of the gaming market itself, and getting the new gamers (at least at first) all for themselves. Whether it works or not has yet to be seen, but you must admit that is is a plan.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2005-12-08 09:59pm

However it should be noted that Nintendo never sold the GameCube for a loss excepting one quarter when they first dropped the price to $99. It made a profit during its entire life cycle.

Nintendo made money on every system sold and the games. Microsoft and Sony lost money on every system sold and Sony made it back on the games.

And btw, from the looks of things developers have been praising the Revolution. The only developer who had complained publicly about the Revolution was Mark Reign, but he hadn't even seen the dev kit or used the controller, and shortly thereafter Nintendo sent him a dev kit and he changed his mind.

Square Enix has made highly positive comments. Ubisoft is developing a Revolution-exclusive game. The developers of Killer 7 have pledged support. Sega has made positive comments and has expressed interest in getting Sega games downloadable on the Revolution. Molyneux has praised it. The founder of Atari has praised it. No one other than Mark Reign has said anything negative about the system. Nintendo has made a point that it will be the cheapest to develop games on in their speeches.

Meanwhile, we have devs publicly complaining about the difficulty of PS3 development and the high costs of developing next-gen games in general.

So far I haven't seen any indications that third party support will be less than GameCube. Please provide evidence as to your assertion.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2005-12-08 10:04pm

Andrew J. wrote: If the PSP-a powerful system with all the marketing blitz Sony could muster-isn't able to put that pressure on Nintendo, I doubt anything will.

Sony has made a series of mistakes with the PSP and it is only in its first generation. Still, it is posing somewhat of a threat to Nintendo's business.

As for the home consoles, I don't think you quite understand the thinking behind the Revolution. When Nintendo says they won't compete with MS or Sony, they mean they won't fight for their parts of the market share. What they're aiming for is increasing the size of the gaming market itself, and getting the new gamers (at least at first) all for themselves. Whether it works or not has yet to be seen, but you must admit that is is a plan.

Of course it's a plan, it's a remarkably stupid plan though. Everyone knows it is much harder to increase the size of a market than to win back market share. I'd really like to hear exactly what groups Nintendo expects to capture, if they think they are going to catch adults with this, they are sorely mistaken.

Galvatron · Post by **Galvatron** » 2005-12-08 10:07pm

Sega has made positive comments and has expressed interest in getting Sega games downloadable on the Revolution.

Seriously? I proposed that on page 1, but I didn't think they'd be smart enough to actually do it. Does that mean all Sega games from the Master System to the Dreamcast would be downloadable?

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2005-12-08 10:09pm

Praxis wrote:However it should be noted that Nintendo never sold the GameCube for a loss excepting one quarter when they first dropped the price to $99. It made a profit during its entire life cycle.

Nintendo made money on every system sold and the games. Microsoft and Sony lost money on every system sold and Sony made it back on the games.

Both methods are valid business tactics, Nintendo's is not inherently superior.

And btw, from the looks of things developers have been praising the Revolution. The only developer who had complained publicly about the Revolution was Mark Reign, but he hadn't even seen the dev kit or used the controller, and shortly thereafter Nintendo sent him a dev kit and he changed his mind.

So what? Praise doesn't mean they will develop for it does it? It's not the platform that turns away third parties, it's the market share and the marketing practices.

Square Enix has made highly positive comments.

They made positive comments about the Xbox 1 too, yet they never developed for it.

Ubisoft is developing a Revolution-exclusive game.

One game. Yay!

The developers of Killer 7 have pledged support. Sega has made positive comments and has expressed interest in getting Sega games downloadable on the Revolution. Molyneux has praised it. The founder of Atari has praised it. No one other than Mark Reign has said anything negative about the system. Nintendo has made a point that it will be the cheapest to develop games on in their speeches.

Blah, blah, praise, maybes, and possibles. That's all you've got here, it's not a solid lineup of exclusive games now is it?

And might I add that the companies that have dropped Revolution support is MUCH longer?

Meanwhile, we have devs publicly complaining about the difficulty of PS3 development and the high costs of developing next-gen games in general.

Too bad, they'll do it anyway. It didn't stop anyone from developing on the PS2.

And as far as ease of development, Microsoft still holds the crown here from sharing PC tools/Shader code.

So far I haven't seen any indications that third party support will be less than GameCube. Please provide evidence as to your assertion.

Capcom has dropped Resident Evil, EA is talking about only offering partial or zero support for Revolution, and we haven't heard any serious third party devs touted. Good enough for you?

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2005-12-08 10:28pm

The Kernel wrote:Nitram, SNES9x is not an illegal program. Nor is emulation unless it is emulating a non-freeware game. At no time did I ever make mention of non-freeware games.

I'm not trying to tell a mod how to do his job, I'm clarifying the law. Besides, if you own the original disc, the law does allow for backup content (as per fair use).

EDIT: The forum policy seem in line with what I am saying, particularly since I never provided a link or even any specific information.

Rules wrote: No Warez. Just so everyone understands, warez and pirating are illegal, so dont offer pirate copies of games or links to warez sites in threads. We dont need any trouble from such things so keep them away from the board. You may discuss the issue, of course, but keep actual links or advice on pirating or other IP-infringement off the board.

'Discussing the issue' makes reference to discussing the morality/legality of the actions of folks with lawyers, not going 'I don't need that feature, I've been doing blah for ages!'. So. Yes. You need to stop telling a Supermod how to do his job. Especially when he's on a short fuse. Telling mods how to do their job.. Not a smart move.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2005-12-08 10:49pm

While it was phrased "inappropriately", Kernel's point about it not being as big a deal still stands; if a lot of people can already accomplish what Nintendo's supposedly offering with the Revolution for free, regardless of the legality it still diminishes the potential impact that such a feature would otherwise have had.

Ford Prefect · Post by **Ford Prefect** » 2005-12-08 10:56pm

The Kernel wrote: And might I add that the companies that have dropped Revolution support is MUCH longer?

If you'd like, though undoubtedly you'd go about supporting this stipulation with an actual list.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2005-12-08 11:05pm

SirNitram wrote: 'Discussing the issue' makes reference to discussing the morality/legality of the actions of folks with lawyers, not going 'I don't need that feature, I've been doing blah for ages!'. So. Yes. You need to stop telling a Supermod how to do his job. Especially when he's on a short fuse. Telling mods how to do their job.. Not a smart move.

I never claimed that I engaged in an illegal activity. Ever. Emulation is not illegal, and it would only be against stated board policy if I was providing links to sites where you can download ROMs.

The only thing I made reference to was SNES9x, a program which is totally legal. And I'm not telling you how to do your job, I'm telling you that what I said was not illegal. If you want to suppress statements about legal activities, then be my guest, I won't stop you.

DarkSilver · Post by **DarkSilver** » 2005-12-08 11:06pm

Actually, I would like to see that list, if you do not mind Kernel, if you can post a link, or post said list, I'd be most appreciative.

(corrected misspelling of Kernel's name, sorry)

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2005-12-08 11:06pm

Ford Prefect wrote: If you'd like, though undoubtedly you'd go about supporting this stipulation with an actual list.

Capcom has dropped RE support (if not support for Revolution entirely), EA has claimed limited to no support, Rare is now gone, Level 5 is no longer interested in Gamecube exclusives, and there are more, these are just some examples.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2005-12-08 11:07pm

DarkSilver wrote:Actually, I would like to see that list, if you do not mind Kernal, if you can post a link, or post said list, I'd be most appreciative.

Alright, give me some Google time, I'll come up with a proper list.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2005-12-08 11:08pm

Uraniun235 wrote:While it was phrased "inappropriately", Kernel's point about it not being as big a deal still stands; if a lot of people can already accomplish what Nintendo's supposedly offering with the Revolution for free, regardless of the legality it still diminishes the potential impact that such a feature would otherwise have had.

You'll note I've not offered up any discourse or arguments against it; just oppressed his own comments about his own activities. You know, doing my job. The idea that doing my job might somehow defeat his argument is pretty insulting; who the fuck would use that to win an argument? That's pretty base abuse of powers.