What if? A Wii little question

[pop311]

I was just thinking, what if the Wii absolutley and completely flops? What if because of this Nintendo loses so much money that they will be forced to be taken out of the(non handheld) console wars? If something like that happened, I feel that I would lose a very big chunk of the interest I had in video games. I say that because I see Nintendo as the gaming company that always gives me a great game, may it be Mario, Zelda, and other Nintendo mascots, even if I have to wait for a while. Also, Nintendo is the light at the end of the unoriginality tunnel. Without Nintendo's mascots, original ideas, and great games, I feel that video games won't be as fun and interesting as they once were.

Also, just because I wrote this doesn't mean that the games on the PS2(and soon to be 3) and Xbox/X360 aren't fun and interesting, I am just saying that Nintendo is a great game company(and my personal favorite) and that video games will be changed, for the worse IMO, with them gone.

Do you guys agree with me at all?

[SpazX]

They still have a pretty firm grip on the handheld gaming market for now and it's not like they're hurting for cash, so it would have to do really badly for them to quit making consoles and it would have to not sell at all for them to quit making games altogether. They'd still have handhelds to produce for and could possibly become a third party game maker for consoles. I doubt the Wii would impact Nintendo so much that they gave up on games altogether no matter how badly they did. Even Sega kept making games and they got pretty fucked with no handheld or anything to keep them afloat.

[furyk]

If the Wii flops and flops hard, Nintendo switches to being a handheld publisher and Microsoft and Sony reap the benefits of Nintendo pulling out as they start to shop their IPs around a la Sega. Personally, I've lost a big chunk of interest in everything besides handheld titles because of how much I travel, but that's just me.

[Vinny]

If the Wii flops, they start taking money out of their $6 billion (it's probably more now) and start working on their next console early. They can take a huge loss this generation and they can probably afford to take another 2 before they'll be in serious trouble.

And as others have said, they own the handheld market. Sure the DS/DSL is only a few million ahead of the PSP but the difference is that Nintendo is losing very little on each DS/DSL sold (unlike the PSP) and they're moving a ton of games (unlike the PSP).

Will the Wii flop? It could.. but Nintendo is far from having to leave the console market.

[Strell]

Nintendo has repeatedly said if their console business fails, they will pull out of it completely.

Which is the only honorable thing to do, and I'd applaud them for it.

I'd be sad as hell and I'd only stick to their portable systems from then on out, but at least I'd still get them down the road.

Hell, can you imagine a wholly-focused portable Nintendo? Son of a bitch.

But as others have said, they could fail probably a few generations and still push out consoles.

[Dr Mario Kart]

Well, is they start taking losses, they could accelerate the rate of loss until they lose $4 Billion, which guarantees them 2nd place, regardless of any other factors.

[upstart]

I just dont see it happening. Last launch nintendo was subdued and isolated and insulated. They didn't have any fireworks, any bangs going off with the GC. This launch Nintendo is a whole different beast, a well-oiled machine just waiting to go off on their competitors. They pretty much stole the last E3 from everyone else, and looks like they might do the same with sales.

The only thing I could see happening is widespread technical failures. Heck, even then Sony might have the same problems(or Worse) happening, so it wouldn't be seen as a total detractor from buying since the price tag is sooo much more attractive.

[NoRain]

As much as I like Mario, Zelda, Metroid,Smash Brothers, ect. and yet still haven't owned a Nintendo console since the SNES, I think I'm going to have to get a Wii. That said yeah I think the Wii is gonna be a risky venture and its either gonna be the greatest thing ever or a HUGE flop. I figure either way its win win thou. There is nothing I'd like to see more then Nintendo go the way of SEGA, meaning I suddenly have Mario, Zelda, Metroid, and Super Smash Brothers on my PS2 or eventually to be had XBOX 360.

[Genocidal]

While it's entirely possible that the Wii won't catch on with the mainstream, it'd have to do worse than the Cube did to even consider flopping bad enough for Nintendo to pull out. With the number of hardcore Nintendo fans combined with parents who will buy the Wii for their children as the cheap alternative this Christmas, also combined with people who are willing to give Nintendo another chance with this innovation, I can't see that happening.

[Follandboy]

I really think the Wii will beat out Sony atleast intially. That should give them a good start on having a successful system. I hear very few people talking about preordering the PS3 as opposed to the Wii.

[TimPV3]

This is a little off topic, but I had an odd thought today. We know the Wii is more powerful than the Gamecube, but still isn't next-gen hardware. Suppose it wasn't a new console at all, and the Wiimote/motion sensors were just made as peripherals for the GCN? Would it still be the hype machine it is now?

[coolz481]

The thing is, nobody will know whether Wii is a flop until 2008, at the earliest. Nintendo (and Sony) are guaranteed to sell out their systems this Christmas and then they'll each have one additional holiday season to prove they can stay competitive with their second/third generation software.

The one thing I wonder about is the 360 and PS3 graphic capabilities. Just seeing shots of games like Gears of War, we know there's a tremendous upside to what developers will be able to display in their games. A couple years down the road, I wonder if the gap between the Wii and those consoles will be so great that it will be hard for consumers to go with the underpowered system, assuming the 360 and PS3 come down in price by then. Conversely, maybe everyone will be so used to great graphics in even crap games that they start to lose their impact and the consumer's interest will return to playability and novelty.

Either way, I sure hope Nintendo and their 3rd parties have some huge surprises planned for next year. All of the 360/PS3 games that seem interesting to me like Assassin's Creed, Mass Effect, and Blue Dragon, have 2007 release dates. We know Mario Galaxy, SSB Brawl and Fire Emblem are coming, but I hope there's more IP's and info on Disaster & Hammer as well.

[pop311]

As much as I like Mario, Zelda, Metroid,Smash Brothers, ect. and yet still haven't owned a Nintendo console since the SNES, I think I'm going to have to get a Wii. That said yeah I think the Wii is gonna be a risky venture and its either gonna be the greatest thing ever or a HUGE flop. I figure either way its win win thou. There is nothing I'd like to see more then Nintendo go the way of SEGA, meaning I suddenly have Mario, Zelda, Metroid, and Super Smash Brothers on my PS2 or eventually to be had XBOX 360. I REALLY don't see that happening. Think about it, when would microsoft ever want a little fairy boy on a quest to me on the MANly man's gaming machine? Or a fully clothed woman running around space and blasting things with a single laser. Also wearing a suit of armour. The only thing I could possibly see happening if Nintendo Segaed it a SSB type game on the Xbox. Characters could be MasterC, some Rare chracters, Oddworld characters, some gansters, pimps, thugs, oh, and 50 Cent. But I dunno. I just don't see Sony or Microsoft wanting Nintendo to make games for them as a 3rd party company.

[foltzie]

This is a little off topic, but I had an odd thought today. We know the Wii is more powerful than the Gamecube, but still isn't next-gen hardware. Suppose it wasn't a new console at all, and the Wiimote/motion sensors were just made as peripherals for the GCN? Would it still be the hype machine it is now?

Short answer, No.

Long Answer, No, because as add-ons for the Gamecube (and some reports hint that they were considered ideas for the GCN) would mean a very small subset of individuals would buy them and only games from Nintendo would use the features. Following the advice of the outgoing CEO they moved the control ideas to the next system and moved their power conservation prowess from the handheld side over and ended up with the Wii.

Making the Wii gives them a shot at rebranding themselves and making the motion controls available to everyone. Even if the hardware is just sized reduced due to better die processes, (it isnt, there have been some upgrades) they have managed to take the rebrandning chance and make it work... At least for now...

[elwood731]

I REALLY don't see that happening. Think about it, when would microsoft ever want a little fairy boy on a quest to me on the MANly man's gaming machine? Or a fully clothed woman running around space and blasting things with a single laser. Also wearing a suit of armour. The only thing I could possibly see happening if Nintendo Segaed it a SSB type game on the Xbox. Characters could be MasterC, some Rare chracters, Oddworld characters, some gansters, pimps, thugs, oh, and 50 Cent. But I dunno. I just don't see Sony or Microsoft wanting Nintendo to make games for them as a 3rd party company.
Are you being sarcastic? Because, Nintendo developing for the XBOX would be the godsend MS has been praying for. Instantly they would start selling in Japan. In fact, MS has so much more to gain from Nintendo going 3rd party than Sony ever would.

[Strell]

NINTENDO WILL NEVER DEVELOP FOR ANOTHER CONSOLE.

Since no one heard me the first time....

[guessed]

The Wii will not flop. Even if the controller fails to delivery on its promise, or ends up being unwieldy/tiring to use for extended periods of time (and I don't think that will be the case), the Wii will be a success. VC is a license to print money.

[sqyxzylyx]

I will not happen since Nintendo is having a great year.

Nintendo announced it's Q1 2006 profit has increased by 10.2%, due to game sales of Nintendo DS hardware and software, it also covered the weak sales of GameCube. Net income for the quarter is 15.6 billion yen (US$133.6 millions). Quarterly sales increased by 85% to 130.9 billion yen (US$1.1 billion). Nintendo has increased its full fiscal year forecast income has been increased from 65 billion to 83 billion yen (US$710.9 millions).

[trq]

To skip the "if" part of the question, and get to the "what would you do" part, I'm with the OP: I just wouldn't be gaming.

Of course I play tons of "mainstream" games on my other consoles, but it's really the Nintendo games that remind me of WHY I play in the first place. I suspect that eventually the "me too"-ness of the industry would eventually just be too much for me, and that'd be that.

[BKPartisan]

:applause::applause::applause: Especially the 'fully clothed woman' part...

"A flea could lift an elephant with 'ifs.'"

I REALLY don't see that happening. Think about it, when would microsoft ever want a little fairy boy on a quest to me on the MANly man's gaming machine? Or a fully clothed woman running around space and blasting things with a single laser. Also wearing a suit of armour. The only thing I could possibly see happening if Nintendo Segaed it a SSB type game on the Xbox. Characters could be MasterC, some Rare chracters, Oddworld characters, some gansters, pimps, thugs, oh, and 50 Cent. But I dunno. I just don't see Sony or Microsoft wanting Nintendo to make games for them as a 3rd party company.

[Hoffgod]

IF that happened (and given how things are going, I doubt they will), I would die a little on the inside. Nintendo is a company that does things differently than any other. Other companies tend to make games that can be branded, marketed, and sold. Nintendo makes games that focus primarily on just being FUN. Perfect example: Pikmin. Don't deny it, you were like me. When you first heard the concept, you just thought of one word: "WHAT?!"
... but damn that game was fun.

And this carries over into anything Nintendo does. The DS has been a gaming godsend since I finally got one this Feburary. It singlehandedly rejuvinated my interest in handheld gaming.

But to cut the love letter short, it would suck. Gaming would become that much less enjoyable.
... plus, it would push me fully into handheld gaming. As was mentioned earlier, a DS with Nintendo focused purely on developing games for that? That system would have a game library that would put anything else ever to shame.

[BrerDan]

I find it kind of funny to see some of the thinking that Wii will either dominate or fail miserably. Honestly, I don't see either happening. Looking at the market trends and what buyers have been buying over the last 5 years, it seems unlikely that Wii will be able to so sway new gamers and gamers who currently don't buy Nintendo as to become dominant. There is too much brand loyalty to Sony and Microsoft.....I think those companies are correct in saying the Wii will become the second system in most homes.

Similarly, due to the novelty and already existing Nintendo-loyal fans, I can't see the Wii doing so miserably as to flop.

Really I think it's going to be a matter of where on the continuum Wii falls. I think at worst it will perform like Gamecube (which--while not meeting expectations--still have been profitable for Nintendo) or at best will be highly successful (selling more units than either PS3 or 360--but as a companion to the other machines)....but I just don't see it "dominating" or "flopping."

But, what do I know. I work in a community college!

[BKPartisan]

I only just recently read Dune, so I don't usually pull quotes like this out of my ass, but I agree with Frank Herbert that the clear, safe path "leads ever down into stagnation."

*edit* Looks like my last post had a quote in it too. That was from a movie I watched last night :-)

I find it kind of funny to see some of the thinking that Wii will either dominate or fail miserably. Honestly, I don't see either happening. Looking at the market trends and what buyers have been buying over the last 5 years, it seems unlikely that Wii will be able to so sway new gamers and gamers who currently don't buy Nintendo as to become dominant. There is too much brand loyalty to Sony and Microsoft.....I think those companies are correct in saying the Wii will become the second system in most homes.

Similarly, due to the novelty and already existing Nintendo-loyal fans, I can't see the Wii doing so miserably as to flop.

Really I think it's going to be a matter of where on the continuum Wii falls. I think at worst it will perform like Gamecube (which--while not meeting expectations--still have been profitable for Nintendo) or at best will be highly successful (selling more units than either PS3 or 360--but as a companion to the other machines)....but I just don't see it "dominating" or "flopping."

But, what do I know. I work in a community college!

[epobirs]

NINTENDO WILL NEVER DEVELOP FOR ANOTHER CONSOLE.

Since no one heard me the first time....

Nintendo execs, like all of their breed, frequently say things that later become conditional and subject to change. Or are simply hyperbole. Sometimes they fall into that category known in the realm of human relations outside business as lying. But that is just the technical term.

It's worse if you're in Japan. Old Man Yamauchi used to dependably make completely batshit pronouncement that the press would faithfully quote, despite being fully aware that he'd had little involvement in the company's daily operations for years. He once indicated he would shut down NOA if they lost their ability to lock in third party publishers. That was conveniently forgotten as Street Fighter II for the sega Genesis hit US retail shelves.

It would be the heighth of folly for Nintendo to pull the plug on an immensely valuable collection of IP merely because they weren't faring well as a platform company.

Change has hit Nintendo in the past and they rolled with it. There were quarters in the late 80s and early 90s where thirrd party publishing royalties accounted for over 80% of profits, most notably in quarters where no first or second party products had shipped. That was an incredibly comfortable position but when it could no longer be done they didn't go into a tailspin as so many others might have done.

If it becomes a negative to continue with their own console platform, they will do what is necessary to keep the $Billions coming, and far better than the most common example, Sega. This is largely because they wouldn't wait for the company to be teetering on the brink of ruin before acting decisively. Once the leadership was convinced they were no longer in the console hardware business there would be a plan defined for how to manage the transition with the least disruption of cashflow.

This would probably start with colelctions of older games that could ported very quickly or run under emulation. A Mario All-Stars for the PS2 could sell a quick million at $30 while more demanding ports and original products were prepared.

There may stop being Nintendo consoles someday but that will come long before there stops being Nintendo games.

[Mookyjooky]

NINTENDO WILL NEVER DEVELOP FOR ANOTHER CONSOLE.

Since no one heard me the first time....

http://www.clive.nl/images/24707.jpg

[epobirs]

It may come as a shock, so brace yourself: There are millions of avid gamers in the world who do not own any Nintendo products nor intend to buy any. If Nintendo were to pass from existence it would be an momentarily interesting news story but otherwise lacking any affect on their lives.

Nintendo's passing would be a loss but one that is given far too much anxiety by a contingent of guys, mostly in their mid to late 20s, who gave over a bit too much of their childhood to the company.

If Nintendo ceases to be very little will change. The IP will get bought up and the characters will continue other other brands, often with the same personnel producing the products. If it can make money it will find a new home and a guy with a revenue track record like Miyamoto would be deluged with offers. Imagine the bidding war to acquire his services.

[the_deej]

http://www.clive.nl/images/24707.jpg


ownt

[Strell]

There may stop being Nintendo consoles someday but that will come long before there stops being Nintendo games.

Yes. In the form of portable systems, a market which they own hands down. And given that portable systems will ever approach console quality graphics, they have no reason to go to console gaming, especially with the emergence of tighter interconnectivity and communication capability. And that's where their IPs will go in full force.

Why waste time developing for a competitor who put them out of business, when they could just double their profit in the handheld sector? 'Cuz as I said before, right now they are dividing their attention between something that is super profitable and something that is somewhat profitable. And I'd expect them to go full force into handhelds instead of putting up with bullshit licensing fees from someone else.

I think they only thing they'd do in the console realm is maybe partner up with some huge third party and make a joint console. But I doubt even that would happen (as evident with the Playstation).

And Juka, that was before they started making consoles of their own, and thus doesn't count toward the argument. And since the Famicom/NES didn't arrive until 1985, and that game shows 1983...well, I'll let you struggle with the math for a while.

Every last person at Nintendo has said that if they ever were driven out of the console business, they'll just drop it altogether.

But it's not going to happen anyway, so it hardly matters.

[BKPartisan]

It's naive to think that the dissolution of a company as large and influential as Nintendo would have no effect on consumers of or other companies in the same industry. In the case of Nintendo, a major voice for innovation would disappear, as well as a voice for pure gaming. Many other companies' idea of innovation is grafting other entertainment products onto game consoles. Furthermore, the reduction of competition would have reprocussions as well. Perhaps Sony or Microsoft would begin to focus more on kid-friendly games to take hold of the market left open from Nintendo.

I don't know what would happen, and I am sure it would not be destructive to the industry, but it would have a profound effect. You make it sound as if Nintendo fans would be the only ones to even notice.

It may come as a shock, so brace yourself: There are millions of avid gamers in the world who do not own any Nintendo products nor intend to buy any. If Nintendo were to pass from existence it would be an momentarily interesting news story but otherwise lacking any affect on their lives.

Nintendo's passing would be a loss but one that is given far too much anxiety by a contingent of guys, mostly in their mid to late 20s, who gave over a bit too much of their childhood to the company.

If Nintendo ceases to be very little will change. The IP will get bought up and the characters will continue other other brands, often with the same personnel producing the products. If it can make money it will find a new home and a guy with a revenue track record like Miyamoto would be deluged with offers. Imagine the bidding war to acquire his services.

[epobirs]

http://www.clive.nl/images/24707.jpg

Not a Nintendo product. Donkey Kong, DK Jr., Mario Bros. and a few others Nintendo arcade titles were licensed to Atari for publication on systems defined as 'computers.' (Parker Bros. had the license to do computer and console versions of Nintendo's Popeye arcade game.) This was in the days before NOA was started.

This was an important distinction because Coleco held the console rights. The difference was defined by the machine including a keyboard. This meant Atari could put donkey Kong on the 400/800 computers but not on the almost identical 5200 console. (Both had the exact same chipset.) But this also eant that Atari could do a version for the Coleco Adam computer. Since the Adam was a modified Coleco-Vision, the cart worked fine on the console as well and was far superior to Coleco's early rushed version. (Coleco had to obtain a separate license from Nintendo for their cassette based DK game for the Adam that contained new level not seen in any Nintendo product.)

The Atarisoft label had the computer publishing rights to a lot of items beyond the Atari library. Most of the Williams/Midway games like Joust, Defender, and Robotron 2084. Some Sega titles including Pengo and Namco items such as Pac-man and Galaxian, plus a few others like Taito (Jungle Hunt) and Konami (Track and Field).

The licenses got weirder for other stuff. The license for Frogger was based on the type of media. Parker Bros. had the rOM rights while Sierra On-line had the magnetic disc and tape rights. This was originally thought to define a dividing line between consoles and computers but Parker Bros. didn't hesitate to produce a Atari computer cart, so Sierra felt entirely correct in doing a version for the Arcadia Starpath device that expanded the memory of the Atari 2600 and loaded games from cassette.

Frogger for the 2600 was a really big deal for Parker Bros. and the Atari 8-bit computer version of Frogger was a very big deal for Sierra with a lot of legendary history attached, so each company was really pissed. Litigation ensued.

[epobirs]

Yes. In the form of portable systems, a market which they own hands down. And given that portable systems will ever approach console quality graphics, they have no reason to go to console gaming, especially with the emergence of tighter interconnectivity and communication capability. And that's where their IPs will go in full force.

Why waste time developing for a competitor who put them out of business, when they could just double their profit in the handheld sector? 'Cuz as I said before, right now they are dividing their attention between something that is super profitable and something that is somewhat profitable. And I'd expect them to go full force into handhelds instead of putting up with bullshit licensing fees from someone else.

I think they only thing they'd do in the console realm is maybe partner up with some huge third party and make a joint console. But I doubt even that would happen (as evident with the Playstation).

And Juka, that was before they started making consoles of their own, and thus doesn't count toward the argument. And since the Famicom/NES didn't arrive until 1985, and that game shows 1983...well, I'll let you struggle with the math for a while.

Every last person at Nintendo has said that if they ever were driven out of the console business, they'll just drop it altogether.

But it's not going to happen anyway, so it hardly matters.

A bunch of prominent people announce their plan at every presidential election to leave the country if their candidate loses. Most of them stay put when the time comes.

A handful of Nintendo people might retire but the majority of them are working stiff in mid-career. There aren't going to quit game development because their work will go out under a different brand name. They have families to feed and mortages to pay, and most of them have been at other companies before Nintendo and having the name on their paycheck change again isn't going to be any great trauma.

Don't be silly. There are $Billions to be made in console software entirely apart from the handheld market. The potential revenue from just porting existing games is immense and easily farmed out. There is simply no way they'd pull the plug on highly profitable console franchises to go exclusively handheld. That would be suggesting idiocy on Nintendo's part, which I'm not inclined to support. No matter how much money they make in handhelds, it can be substantially increased by continuing software for consoles.

"Bullshit licensing fees from someone else?" I find it very hard to belive Nintendo would have a problem with that. Try to recall who established that business model and fought numerous court battles to protect it. Nintendo would not behave as EA and Tengen did long ago. They'd happily pay the fees in exchange for someone else handling all of the platform management hassles, something they're intimately familiar with and glad to be free of if it no longer proves profitable to have their own. At most, they'd arrange a second party deal with Microsoft or Sony to trade exclusivity and lesser control for having the partner entirely responsible for media production and eating the costs if they overproduce a product. Being a third or second party has its advantages.



At the time Atari published Donkey Kong for their computers the Famicom was a going concern in Japan. Atari computers were available in Japan, as was their software, albeit solely in Western alphabets. Nintendo simply didn't care back then. (Even though the Atari version was more complete than the Famicom version.) The Famicom was an iffy thing at that very early point and the licenses to Atari and Coleco were easy money. Once the Famicom took off the price of licensing a Nintendo game multiplied greatly. They would still offer a license but only at a price that was an indirect rejection. ($50K was a huge amount for a license back then.)

[epobirs]

It's naive to think that the dissolution of a company as large and influential as Nintendo would have no effect on consumers of or other companies in the same industry. In the case of Nintendo, a major voice for innovation would disappear, as well as a voice for pure gaming. Many other companies' idea of innovation is grafting other entertainment products onto game consoles. Furthermore, the reduction of competition would have reprocussions as well. Perhaps Sony or Microsoft would begin to focus more on kid-friendly games to take hold of the market left open from Nintendo.

I don't know what would happen, and I am sure it would not be destructive to the industry, but it would have a profound effect. You make it sound as if Nintendo fans would be the only ones to even notice.

Please. Just look at business history. Names that were once titans in their field have passed from existence or become mere brands of other companies, yet the world just kept cranking along. The effects are short lived as the talent find employment elsewhere and other companies respond to any gap that has appeared in the market. For a core group it has great impact but for the majority of consumer it's just a blip on the radar.

There will always be people who look upon the collapse of a company as the harbinger of doom. They are rarely, if ever, correct. In my parents' youth there were far more automobile manufacturers in the world. My mother can remember taking a borrowed Nash Ambassador on her honeymoon and later owning a Nash Rambler. That company and even the brand, once known to virtually every American, passed from existence before anybody on this site was born and most couldn't summon much knowledge of the company or its products. There is no gaping hole in the car industry where Nash once stood.

The typical twelve year old today has no concept of what Atari once meant to the video game industry. To them Atari is a troubled French publisher of games like the Test Drive series. Other than lacking historical knowledge, how is the game industry any different for them? What critical products have failed to appear? Hell, that twelve year old cannot even remember the more recent era when video games were Nintendo uber alles. Nintendo could become a third party publisher and it would make little difference to them. They don't have the emotional investment that the NES generation has in Nintendo. Much in the same way a certain age range is terribly excited about the Transformers movies and anxious that it be true to their childhood icon. Meanwhile, those younger and older who weren't so subject to the Transformers allure aren't that excited.

[javeryh]

Wouldn't this have to flop financially for Nintendo to consider pulling out of the console business? People keep forgetting that Nintendo made money on the Gamecube even though they "lost" the console war coming in a distant third. The sole purpose of a business is to make money and as long as that continues to happen Nintendo isn't going anywhere.

[jkam]

There are so many things wrong with this thread its insane.

I don't think Nintendo will go anywhere. If Sony and Microsoft didn't have other areas of buisness to fall back on would they still be in the gaming industry? Sony usually makes the most money in the gaming division but as it turns out it is now the source of its biggest lost due to costs of the PS3. http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=18583
Luckily their electronics divison is doing better. They lose so much money on consoles its insane. The PS2 is finally making money now at the end of its life cycle? Nintendo although in 3rd place makes money plain and simple. Even with the low of the Gamecube they still did pretty good.

epobirs....

Miyamoto would probably be thrown a ton of offers if Nintendo went belly up BUT if he didn't work for Nintendo would a game like Nintendogs or Pikmin actually see the light of day on a Microsoft or Sony console? Somehow I just don't think so. If they did come out would they then be the kiddie consoles?

If Nintendo no longer made hardware where would Sony steal their ideas from? Yeah I said it.



The one thing I wonder about is the 360 and PS3 graphic capabilities. Just seeing shots of games like Gears of War, we know there's a tremendous upside to what developers will be able to display in their games. A couple years down the road, I wonder if the gap between the Wii and those consoles will be so great that it will be hard for consumers to go with the underpowered system, assuming the 360 and PS3 come down in price by then. Conversely, maybe everyone will be so used to great graphics in even crap games that they start to lose their impact and the consumer's interest will return to playability and novelty.



Graphics aren't everything...The DS is a good example of this. Epobirs and I had a long discussion once about how the PSP wasn't competing with the DS because he said the technology of the PSP was much greater than the DS therefore putting it in its own class. Right now it looks as if the DS is the system truely in a class of its own. I'm looking at the Wii as the console version of the DS. As long as Nintendo can secure a lineup more like the DS they'll be sitting pretty. The GC suffered from lack of games.

I think the Wii is going to be pretty sick. The system is supposedly free of bottle necks and we could see a lot of games running at 60 FPS. The load times will most likely be on the shorter side as was the case with the Cube. With the ease of programming games could be finished quicker and companies like this because it boosts profit for them. Where as some people see the system as underpowered I see it as a refined little monster. I think it might be the perfect counterpoint to the overbloated PS3. If the system is capable of putting out games better than RE4 than who gives a crap? I don't think I'll ever play RE4 and go wow this looks like shit where I may say that with some early N64 or PS1 stuff.

I'm not sure why everyone wants to see a company like Nintendo who made gaming the multi-billion dollar industry it is today vanish. Can someone name something besides (Live) that either Microsoft or Sony did to further the industry? Even if you don't want to look Nintendo's influence is everywhere.

[epobirs]

There are so many things wrong with this thread its insane.

I don't think Nintendo will go anywhere. If Sony and Microsoft didn't have other areas of buisness to fall back on would they still be in the gaming industry? Sony usually makes the most money in the gaming division but as it turns out it is now the source of its biggest lost due to costs of the PS3. http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=18583
Luckily their electronics divison is doing better. They lose so much money on consoles its insane. The PS2 is finally making money now at the end of its life cycle? Nintendo although in 3rd place makes money plain and simple. Even with the low of the Gamecube they still did pretty good.

epobirs....

Miyamoto would probably be thrown a ton of offers if Nintendo went belly up BUT if he didn't work for Nintendo would a game like Nintendogs or Pikmin actually see the light of day on a Microsoft or Sony console? Somehow I just don't think so. If they did come out would they then be the kiddie consoles?

If Nintendo no longer made hardware where would Sony steal their ideas from? Yeah I said it.



Graphics aren't everything...The DS is a good example of this. Epobirs and I had a long discussion once about how the PSP wasn't competing with the DS because he said the technology of the PSP was much greater than the DS therefore putting it in its own class. Right now it looks as if the DS is the system truely in a class of its own. I'm looking at the Wii as the console version of the DS. As long as Nintendo can secure a lineup more like the DS they'll be sitting pretty. The GC suffered from lack of games.

I think the Wii is going to be pretty sick. The system is supposedly free of bottle necks and we could see a lot of games running at 60 FPS. The load times will most likely be on the shorter side as was the case with the Cube. With the ease of programming games could be finished quicker and companies like this because it boosts profit for them. Where as some people see the system as underpowered I see it as a refined little monster. I think it might be the perfect counterpoint to the overbloated PS3. If the system is capable of putting out games better than RE4 than who gives a crap? I don't think I'll ever play RE4 and go wow this looks like shit where I may say that with some early N64 or PS1 stuff.

I'm not sure why everyone wants to see a company like Nintendo who made gaming the multi-billion dollar industry it is today vanish. Can someone name something besides (Live) that either Microsoft or Sony did to further the industry? Even if you don't want to look Nintendo's influence is everywhere.

You give a somewhat distorted view of Sony's situation from just the most recent results. Gearing up to launch a new high-end platform is hugely expensive. The company went deeply in the hole for both the PS1 and PS2. But it was well worth it both times. Over the last decade Sony has had many quarters where the company as a whole was reported as healthily profitable but on examination only making net revenue from the video games operation. It was a testament to how greatly profitable the video game operations were that they could still look good after negating the red ink coming out of the rest of the company. The PS2 has been well into profits for years. Whether the hardware is sold at a loss is of little concern if the end result is massive software sales. Sony could drop the PS2 price to $99 without any pain if they needed a sales spike but that has yet to happen. Perhaps as Xmas approaches.

The idea that Nintendo is the sole source of unconventional software is just nonsense, especially if you look at the native Japan market. Pikmin is just a cute version of a typical RTS. Explore the map and manage your resources with a few puzzles and battles thrown in. Very nice execution but not a revolutionary gameplay concept. Likewise, Nintendogs was a triumph of marketing rather than design. 'Games' that enslave the owner to the wellbeing of a virtual pet have been myriad since 'Little Computer People' on the Commodore 64. (Just the earliest example that comes to mind.)

Sega took far greater risks on the Dreamcast than anything Nintendo has done anytime recent. Not that this worked out especially well for Sega, did it? But we aren't getting the likes of Seaman or Shenmu from Nintendo.

If a designer has a good track record he gets some greater freedom to experiment. It's no different than any other commerical artistic endeavor. A Spielberg can pitch and win support for a movie concpet that would get a much lesser director thrown off the studio lot. Nobody is going to througha mountain of money at Miyamoto to then reject his proven instincts. A far bigger concern is projects with a high burn rate that take too long to produce a sellable product. Having a project take so long it changes platforms repeatedly can be more costly than just putting out a turkey and gtting it over with so you can try again from scratch. Enough turkeys in a row can greatly restrict a creator's freedom and the trust of those putting up the cash has to be rewon.

Spielberg did 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' on a rather restrictive budget and the movie was the better for it because it forced Spielberg to focus on characters and story rather than spectacle over all else. At the time Spileberg was under a cloud for death march porductions that went horribly overbudget. This was forgiven on Jaws and Close Encounters of the Third Kind because those movies became huge hits but 1941 was a bomb, after which none of the studios would give him free rein until he showed he could exercise some restraint. After Raiders the studios felt they were now dealing with a grown-up and he could just about anything he wanted.

Nintendo picked up the 'kiddie' descriptor because for many years they pursued that market to the near exclusion of others. That the era is long past does not alter the memories of consumers in a certain age range who tend to form the opinions they'll hold for the rest of their lives early on. It saves them a lot of tedious thinking and processing of new data.

Sony and Microsoft entered the market with different memes to lug around for years to come. A substantial amount of the PS2 library is plainly oriented towards pre-teens and younger but no amount of that can cause Sony to be labeled 'kiddie.' It's just an expansive full featured library.

Many publishers later regretted they held off from supporting Xbox with some of their more child oriented titles. Some games like the early Harry Potter titles got their Xbox ports long after they'd gone GH on PS2. It turned out that a lot of Xbox owning adults needed stuff their kids could play, too. The Spongebob Squarepants game got its Xbox port so long after the PS2 and GameCube versions were published it appears to have gone directly to PH status without ever being sold as a regular Xbox game. Which means an Xbox game can be considered a Platinum Hit for having exceed a million unit sales on somebody else's platform.


Nothing has changed regarding the DS and PSP. Someone strongly compelled by graphics is not going to put the dS in the same category as the PSP. Each succeeds or fails on its own, not because of what the other did or did not do. I have PSP games that simply cannot be duplicated in an enjoyable form on the DS. This does not mean the DS is bad in of itself, just that it doesn't satisfy the entire range of consumer desires.

I cannot be enticed to a platform by Pokemon games because I have not interest in the franchise. But that would not mean I would dismiss the platform unless it offered nothing but Pokemon.

Nobody said they want Nintendo to fail. The question was 'what if,' not 'wouldn't it be great if.' Playing Devil's Advocate does not require one to actually embrace the argument or desire a turn of events at the core of the discussion.

[Reality's Fringe]

What if you found yourself in an alternate dimension where everyone ejaculated candy instead of semen, and semen was sold as a sweet treat? You'd be a gay bitch for some M&Ms.

[pop311]

What if you found yourself in an alternate dimension where everyone ejaculated candy instead of semen, and semen was sold as a sweet treat? You'd be a gay bitch for some M&Ms. What the fuck are you talking about?:-s:dunce:

[Reality's Fringe]

What the fuck are you talking about?:-s:dunce:

Think about it. I mean, if you were in that other dimension, you'd have to be yankin' some mankin' for a little candy. By that same token, you'd be REAL popular with the ladies.

[Kaijufan]

If the Wii did flop I would want to see Microsoft buy Nintendo.

[Oops! I did it again.]

I just dont see it happening. Last launch nintendo was subdued and isolated and insulated. They didn't have any fireworks, any bangs going off with the GC. This launch Nintendo is a whole different beast, a well-oiled machine just waiting to go off on their competitors. They pretty much stole the last E3 from everyone else, and looks like they might do the same with sales.
QFT...well said.

[destro713]

A couple months ago, the entire gaming world exploded in controversy over the naming of the Wii. Now the name is openly used in peoples' daily conversation without so much as a smirk, and now, largely a result of that massive hype engine, the system has become the hottest conversation topic in gaming. The only thing that comes close is the PS3, and people only talk about the ridiculous price. So many people who haven't bought Nintendo products in many years are saying they might "have to" get a Wii.

Also, just think about the DS. It was a totally new concept and it started slow and awkward, and just sort of plodded along for a good year... and then some good games started to come out, they released the Lite, and it suddenly became the coolest gadget in the world. People who never would have imagined that they'd become avid gamers are hitting up Brain Age and Nintendogs every day. The Wii has the potential to have that same appeal, but with the added bonus of blasting out of the gates with loads and loads of free viral publicity.

To predict that the Wii will be the biggest success of this generation is sort of a hard sell considering recent history, but it won't be a surprise if it happens.

[dpb6058]

Highly unlikely the Wii will tank, although Nintendo has become a bit more brash in pushing the boundaries of video gaming. If anything, the backwards compatibility along with some highly anticipated launch titles will keep the Wii afloat and give them a good 6-8 months to change strategy if necessary.

[jkam]

You give a somewhat distorted view of Sony's situation from just the most recent results. Gearing up to launch a new high-end platform is hugely expensive. The company went deeply in the hole for both the PS1 and PS2. But it was well worth it both times. Over the last decade Sony has had many quarters where the company as a whole was reported as healthily profitable but on examination only making net revenue from the video games operation. It was a testament to how greatly profitable the video game operations were that they could still look good after negating the red ink coming out of the rest of the company. The PS2 has been well into profits for years. Whether the hardware is sold at a loss is of little concern if the end result is massive software sales. Sony could drop the PS2 price to $99 without any pain if they needed a sales spike but that has yet to happen. Perhaps as Xmas approaches.


I'm not saying that the PS1 and the PS2 weren't successful. It's obvious they were. However the problem this time around is that not only is Sony going deep in the hole for the PS3 they are asking the consumer to do the same. The PS2 did well because even at $300 it seemed like a bargain with the DVD player and backwards compatibility with a library of games. Are people really excitied about Blu-Ray movies? I guarantee the general public could care less. Then you have the games which will be how much? $60? $70? $80? I don't know about you but throwing down about $700 at launch to get a PS3 and a game doesn't seem all that appealing. Yes we will get a greatest hits line but probably not until at least a year into the consoles life. Sony stands to lose a LOT in that year. PS2 sales could cushion the blow a little but I'm thinking the PS3 is going to have to be really a whole lot more amazing than the 360 because for a similar experience at a much cheaper price I'm not so sure the Sony faithful will stick around. There is already a supposed bundle with a game, a live account, and some free marketplace points. Not too mention Microsoft has the year lead where they were able to iron out the kinks....Sony is going to need time to do the same. From where we stand now most Xbox 360 games don't look any less good graphically than anything I've seen from the PS3 camp.

The idea that Nintendo is the sole source of unconventional software is just nonsense, especially if you look at the native Japan market. Pikmin is just a cute version of a typical RTS. Explore the map and manage your resources with a few puzzles and battles thrown in. Very nice execution but not a revolutionary gameplay concept. Likewise, Nintendogs was a triumph of marketing rather than design. 'Games' that enslave the owner to the wellbeing of a virtual pet have been myriad since 'Little Computer People' on the Commodore 64. (Just the earliest example that comes to mind.)

Sega took far greater risks on the Dreamcast than anything Nintendo has done anytime recent. Not that this worked out especially well for Sega, did it? But we aren't getting the likes of Seaman or Shenmu from Nintendo.

I never said that Nintendo is the sole source of unconventional software. I realize that most ideas came from somewhere...much like watching Sony follow Nintendo step for step. What I was pointing out with Nintendo was that they have the ability to push unconvential software to the forefront and make it something that has mass appeal. I'm not sure how many copies Little Computer People sold but I'm sure it was a heck of a lot less than Nintendogs.
If you think about it that is what Nintendo really did all along...the NES made video games popular again. They took what existed and made it accessible to everyone. The DS was a gamble and most people thought it to be a gimmick. You could also say computers have done that for years. What good is touch screen technology on a old computer game that no one will play?

Ahhh the dreamcast...yes a truely ahead of its time system. They took risks but as most people already know SEGA was deep in the whole from the Saturn and the easily hackable Dreamcast didn't help matters. I'm not sure how the dreamcast was a greater risk than the Wii is though. Here's Sony and Microsoft saying were giving you HD graphics, Storage Space out to wazzooo, a bazillon processors, and even a piece of the kitchen sink. Then here comes Nintendo with a tiny little box with a remote looking controller, No HD, and a lot less processing power. So now instead of talking about taking risks they are putting their money where their mouth is. They are leaving it up to the software and the games not the power of the box.


If a designer has a good track record he gets some greater freedom to experiment. It's no different than any other commerical artistic endeavor. A Spielberg can pitch and win support for a movie concpet that would get a much lesser director thrown off the studio lot. Nobody is going to througha mountain of money at Miyamoto to then reject his proven instincts. A far bigger concern is projects with a high burn rate that take too long to produce a sellable product. Having a project take so long it changes platforms repeatedly can be more costly than just putting out a turkey and gtting it over with so you can try again from scratch. Enough turkeys in a row can greatly restrict a creator's freedom and the trust of those putting up the cash has to be rewon.

Spielberg did 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' on a rather restrictive budget and the movie was the better for it because it forced Spielberg to focus on characters and story rather than spectacle over all else. At the time Spileberg was under a cloud for death march porductions that went horribly overbudget. This was forgiven on Jaws and Close Encounters of the Third Kind because those movies became huge hits but 1941 was a bomb, after which none of the studios would give him free rein until he showed he could exercise some restraint. After Raiders the studios felt they were now dealing with a grown-up and he could just about anything he wanted.

Nintendo picked up the 'kiddie' descriptor because for many years they pursued that market to the near exclusion of others. That the era is long past does not alter the memories of consumers in a certain age range who tend to form the opinions they'll hold for the rest of their lives early on. It saves them a lot of tedious thinking and processing of new data.

Sony and Microsoft entered the market with different memes to lug around for years to come. A substantial amount of the PS2 library is plainly oriented towards pre-teens and younger but no amount of that can cause Sony to be labeled 'kiddie.' It's just an expansive full featured library.

Many publishers later regretted they held off from supporting Xbox with some of their more child oriented titles. Some games like the early Harry Potter titles got their Xbox ports long after they'd gone GH on PS2. It turned out that a lot of Xbox owning adults needed stuff their kids could play, too. The Spongebob Squarepants game got its Xbox port so long after the PS2 and GameCube versions were published it appears to have gone directly to PH status without ever being sold as a regular Xbox game. Which means an Xbox game can be considered a Platinum Hit for having exceed a million unit sales on somebody else's platform.

My Miyamoto statement was to point out that Sony and Microsoft have an image of Grand Theft Auto and Halo. Would they be as willing to put their marketing muscle into a game like Pikmin which doesn't fall into their older cooler images? You even said yourself that the XBOX didn't have some kiddie games and publishers later regretted it. Why did they not have those games to begin with? They market their systems to adults or kids who want to be adults and play that badass GTA game. So yes Miyamoto might have the freedom to do what he wants but would Sony or Microsoft wave the flag for a dog game the same it would for GTA? I don't think so. That was my point.


Nothing has changed regarding the DS and PSP. Someone strongly compelled by graphics is not going to put the dS in the same category as the PSP. Each succeeds or fails on its own, not because of what the other did or did not do. I have PSP games that simply cannot be duplicated in an enjoyable form on the DS. This does not mean the DS is bad in of itself, just that it doesn't satisfy the entire range of consumer desires.

I cannot be enticed to a platform by Pokemon games because I have not interest in the franchise. But that would not mean I would dismiss the platform unless it offered nothing but Pokemon.

I disagree...you put way too much emphasis on graphics. Yes certain gamers would be swayed by the shiny graphics but overall its still the portable video game market. There are plenty of people even on this board who talk about how they had a PSP and they were excitied for it but after they got the system and some games they didn't like. So they went and got a DS. Some people also had the opposite reaction getting a DS and not liking it and then getting a PSP. So one portable gets a new sale because, in that gamers eyes one portable did not hold up to their expectations.

I don't even understand your enjoyable form comment either. A game like Tony Hawk...Underground 2 Remix on the PSP looks better than the DS version Sk8land but I'm sure a lot of people enjoy it just the same. Then you have games like Castlevania which as 3D PS2 games people don't really like them. Then you have the GBA and DS Castlevania games which are 2D and people really enjoy them. So what exactly would be consumer desires? I thought it would be for an enjoyable game but according to your statement its only about the graphics. If the graphics are great but the game plays like shit what is it worth? If said gamer is that narrow minded about gaming then he's not really a gamer....he just got one because it looked cool and his friend had one. If portables were made only to display graphics as there primary function than the PSP would win....luckily there primary function is to play games.


Nobody said they want Nintendo to fail. The question was 'what if,' not 'wouldn't it be great if.' Playing Devil's Advocate does not require one to actually embrace the argument or desire a turn of events at the core of the discussion.

When someone says wow I'd really like to see Zelda or Mario on my XBOX that's pretty much saying "wouldn't it be great if Nintendo failed in the console market!"

[Hoffgod]

POST #35
You give a somewhat distorted view of Sony's situation from just the most recent results. Gearing up to launch a new high-end platform is hugely expensive. The company went deeply in the hole for both the PS1 and PS2. But it was well worth it both times. Over the last decade Sony has had many quarters where the company as a whole was reported as healthily profitable but on examination only making net revenue from the video games operation. It was a testament to how greatly profitable the video game operations were that they could still look good after negating the red ink coming out of the rest of the company. The PS2 has been well into profits for years. Whether the hardware is sold at a loss is of little concern if the end result is massive software sales. Sony could drop the PS2 price to $99 without any pain if they needed a sales spike but that has yet to happen. Perhaps as Xmas approaches.

The idea that Nintendo is the sole source of unconventional software is just nonsense, especially if you look at the native Japan market. Pikmin is just a cute version of a typical RTS. Explore the map and manage your resources with a few puzzles and battles thrown in. Very nice execution but not a revolutionary gameplay concept. Likewise, Nintendogs was a triumph of marketing rather than design. 'Games' that enslave the owner to the wellbeing of a virtual pet have been myriad since 'Little Computer People' on the Commodore 64. (Just the earliest example that comes to mind.)

Sega took far greater risks on the Dreamcast than anything Nintendo has done anytime recent. Not that this worked out especially well for Sega, did it? But we aren't getting the likes of Seaman or Shenmu from Nintendo.

If a designer has a good track record he gets some greater freedom to experiment. It's no different than any other commerical artistic endeavor. A Spielberg can pitch and win support for a movie concpet that would get a much lesser director thrown off the studio lot. Nobody is going to througha mountain of money at Miyamoto to then reject his proven instincts. A far bigger concern is projects with a high burn rate that take too long to produce a sellable product. Having a project take so long it changes platforms repeatedly can be more costly than just putting out a turkey and gtting it over with so you can try again from scratch. Enough turkeys in a row can greatly restrict a creator's freedom and the trust of those putting up the cash has to be rewon.

Spielberg did 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' on a rather restrictive budget and the movie was the better for it because it forced Spielberg to focus on characters and story rather than spectacle over all else. At the time Spileberg was under a cloud for death march porductions that went horribly overbudget. This was forgiven on Jaws and Close Encounters of the Third Kind because those movies became huge hits but 1941 was a bomb, after which none of the studios would give him free rein until he showed he could exercise some restraint. After Raiders the studios felt they were now dealing with a grown-up and he could just about anything he wanted.

Nintendo picked up the 'kiddie' descriptor because for many years they pursued that market to the near exclusion of others. That the era is long past does not alter the memories of consumers in a certain age range who tend to form the opinions they'll hold for the rest of their lives early on. It saves them a lot of tedious thinking and processing of new data.

Sony and Microsoft entered the market with different memes to lug around for years to come. A substantial amount of the PS2 library is plainly oriented towards pre-teens and younger but no amount of that can cause Sony to be labeled 'kiddie.' It's just an expansive full featured library.

Many publishers later regretted they held off from supporting Xbox with some of their more child oriented titles. Some games like the early Harry Potter titles got their Xbox ports long after they'd gone GH on PS2. It turned out that a lot of Xbox owning adults needed stuff their kids could play, too. The Spongebob Squarepants game got its Xbox port so long after the PS2 and GameCube versions were published it appears to have gone directly to PH status without ever being sold as a regular Xbox game. Which means an Xbox game can be considered a Platinum Hit for having exceed a million unit sales on somebody else's platform.


Nothing has changed regarding the DS and PSP. Someone strongly compelled by graphics is not going to put the dS in the same category as the PSP. Each succeeds or fails on its own, not because of what the other did or did not do. I have PSP games that simply cannot be duplicated in an enjoyable form on the DS. This does not mean the DS is bad in of itself, just that it doesn't satisfy the entire range of consumer desires.

I cannot be enticed to a platform by Pokemon games because I have not interest in the franchise. But that would not mean I would dismiss the platform unless it offered nothing but Pokemon.

Nobody said they want Nintendo to fail. The question was 'what if,' not 'wouldn't it be great if.' Playing Devil's Advocate does not require one to actually embrace the argument or desire a turn of events at the core of the discussion.

POST #36
What if you found yourself in an alternate dimension where everyone ejaculated candy instead of semen, and semen was sold as a sweet treat? You'd be a gay bitch for some M&Ms.

I believe this is the perfect way to sum up the realm of insanity this thread has gotten into.

[upstart]

Heh. I just know that Nintendo is a gaming company that has been around since 1977(in it's present form) and survived countless attacks from dozens of doomed competitors in nearly perfect form. And saying that it can be wiped out in one generation and totally forgotten about is a pretty insane leap.

And besides that, the fact that I have had 2 girlfriends who both called whatever console I happened to be playing at the time "a nintendo" says volumes about the longevity of that little goofy japanese company.

[MarioColbert]

Please. Just look at business history. Names that were once titans in their field have passed from existence or become mere brands of other companies, yet the world just kept cranking along. The effects are short lived as the talent find employment elsewhere and other companies respond to any gap that has appeared in the market. For a core group it has great impact but for the majority of consumer it's just a blip on the radar.

You know, epobirs: you are being too soft. Look at LucasArts "fading away into oblivion" and nobody caring. Sierra too... and I am willing to bet that people are not going to form huge lines to play the new Sam & Max, or Sam Suede in Undercover exposure.

Truth is: nobody gave a damn about Psychonauts, and that shows that in this industry, things like names, games, franchises, and other such nonsense come and go at a rate that isn't as easily predictable as most of the people on this forum think.

Partisan: what YOU said is rather naive, because even if franchises like HALO, Mario, etc, were to pull out and say "no more," I assure you it won't take long for the next "big thing" to pop up that would make most forget about all that stuff. The good thing from the demise of any big-name monster is the amount of space that would become available for the small underdogs that are currently in production, not the rare 'diamonds in the rough' that will be produced a few years later by "celebrity game designers." Shit, think of the amount of weight that the name JOHN CARMACK used to have, and how he is now, way past his "15 months of fame."


The amount of pompous presumption on this forum is truly damn staggering. Newsflash, bitches: you (and me) are a bunch of -losers- on an entertaining, but meaningless internet forum. Unless you've worked a bit in the video game industry, know the practical sense (apart from the common-sense business model that I constantly see being beaten here over there next to the dead horse), you really know dick about the videogame industry, nevermind public opinion, do you? Some of you (Mooky Jooky) obviously fail to grasp concepts as simple as those of the ENGLISH LANGUAGE, or at least that whole point of future tense personified with the use of the word WILL. Others think that beacuse a couple of their dumbass friends have said "Wii sux lol" that there is a group of people thinking that Wii is for kids, and that nobody will buy it.

I'm not talking about "what ifs" mind you, nor is this an attack on the OP for the topic: it's a good question, actually. It's the inane babble over HD and other presumptions that plague any decent topic around here, and make it very difficult for me NOT to jump into the self-gratifying warmth of MarioColbert character.

[io]

The licenses got weirder for other stuff. The license for Frogger was based on the type of media. Parker Bros. had the rOM rights while Sierra On-line had the magnetic disc and tape rights. This was originally thought to define a dividing line between consoles and computers but Parker Bros. didn't hesitate to produce a Atari computer cart, so Sierra felt entirely correct in doing a version for the Arcadia Starpath device that expanded the memory of the Atari 2600 and loaded games from cassette..

Holy crap epobirs, you jogged some childhood memories there (I'm NOT one of those who remembers Nintendo fondly from childhood - I wasn't even aware they made Donkey Kong at the time :rofl:). But I actually had one of those tape-loading devices for my Atari. Wow... I had completely forgotten what it was called. I don't think I ever got Frogger for it. Didn't it come with a pretty good Galaxian-type game? I think that's the only thing I ever played on it.

[TimPV3]

Meh, anything could happen. Sega, who I love as much as Nintendo for all the childhood memories, was supposed to make a turn around with the Dreamcast but ended up dying out. If you go back and read articles from 99 Dreamcast had everything going for it, awesome price, great games, hell, they even had a special hotline for finding the system since the demand was so high after launch. Suddenly they just stopped selling, and all the projects got ported over to PS2. A lot of people noticed, but a majority didn't. Heck, now most people neglect the fact that there's a lot of PS2/Xbox games that originally appeared on the DC. While Nintendo wouldn't be forgotten, a lot of people wouldn't take notice.

Whatever, consoles or not, they'll always have the handheld market.

And I'll say it again, using the Wiimote as intended is tiring. It's tiring to sit and play a full game of Time Crisis, I can't imagine it being any different holding a Wiimote.

[Dr Mario Kart]

And I'll say it again, using the Wiimote as intended is tiring. It's tiring to sit and play a full game of Time Crisis, I can't imagine it being any different holding a Wiimote.

You may have stumbled on to something. Call Nintendo, they probably havent conceived this possibility yet.

[BKPartisan]

Right, because I was totally talking about a videogame franchise and not a company. My point was simply that if Nintendo were to go out of business, ripples would occur and your bitch-ass people would feel them. I especially know this to be true in your case since your gamecube is like your second true love. ;) By ripples, I don't mean that you will cry because you miss Mario or a specific title. If nothing else, Nintendo failing would make it very difficult to get funding for projects that bear any resemblance to said failure. At least that is my outside view of the industry. It just seems that you don't get money for things that have not absolutely been proven to make money.

Note: I decided not to call you a bitch-ass because I love you, dawg



Partisan: what YOU said is rather naive, because even if franchises like HALO, Mario, etc, were to pull out and say "no more," I assure you it won't take long for the next "big thing" to pop up that would make most forget about all that stuff. The good thing from the demise of any big-name monster is the amount of space that would become available for the small underdogs that are currently in production, not the rare 'diamonds in the rough' that will be produced a few years later by "celebrity game designers." Shit, think of the amount of weight that the name JOHN CARMACK used to have, and how he is now, way past his "15 months of fame."

[Mookyjooky]

Not a Nintendo product. Donkey Kong, DK Jr., Mario Bros. and a few others Nintendo arcade titles were licensed to Atari for publication on systems defined as 'computers.' (Parker Bros. had the license to do computer and console versions of Nintendo's Popeye arcade game.) This was in the days before NOA was started.

This was an important distinction because Coleco held the console rights. The difference was defined by the machine including a keyboard. This meant Atari could put donkey Kong on the 400/800 computers but not on the almost identical 5200 console. (Both had the exact same chipset.) But this also eant that Atari could do a version for the Coleco Adam computer. Since the Adam was a modified Coleco-Vision, the cart worked fine on the console as well and was far superior to Coleco's early rushed version. (Coleco had to obtain a separate license from Nintendo for their cassette based DK game for the Adam that contained new level not seen in any Nintendo product.)

The Atarisoft label had the computer publishing rights to a lot of items beyond the Atari library. Most of the Williams/Midway games like Joust, Defender, and Robotron 2084. Some Sega titles including Pengo and Namco items such as Pac-man and Galaxian, plus a few others like Taito (Jungle Hunt) and Konami (Track and Field).

The licenses got weirder for other stuff. The license for Frogger was based on the type of media. Parker Bros. had the rOM rights while Sierra On-line had the magnetic disc and tape rights. This was originally thought to define a dividing line between consoles and computers but Parker Bros. didn't hesitate to produce a Atari computer cart, so Sierra felt entirely correct in doing a version for the Arcadia Starpath device that expanded the memory of the Atari 2600 and loaded games from cassette.

Frogger for the 2600 was a really big deal for Parker Bros. and the Atari 8-bit computer version of Frogger was a very big deal for Sierra with a lot of legendary history attached, so each company was really pissed. Litigation ensued.
I had Donkey Kong on the 2600.

And if this were all relevant, that means that Nintendo could possibly program for PS3 and not the 360. Since the PS3 is classified the same way.

Also, I owned hardware made by Nintendo for the PC in 96-97. Controllers and mice and stuff.

[blandstalker]

Miyamoto would probably be thrown a ton of offers if Nintendo went belly up BUT if he didn't work for Nintendo would a game like Nintendogs or Pikmin actually see the light of day on a Microsoft or Sony console? Somehow I just don't think so. If they did come out would they then be the kiddie consoles?


Katamari Damacy
Gitaroo Man
Culdcept
Parappa the Rapper
Osu Tatekae Ouendan
Loco Roco
anything by Treasure

Whether you like all these games or not, they're certainly creative, innovative, at least a little bit cute, and definitely off the beaten path. And none of them came from Nintendo.

Miyamoto would probably form his own software studio, and all the consoles would fall all over themselves to get his games.

[Strell]

Note: I decided not to call you a bitch-ass because I love you, dawg

But that won't stop me.

MarioColbert.

You bitch-ass $$$$a.

[BKPartisan]

No he didn't!

But that won't stop me.

MarioColbert.

You bitch-ass $$$$a.

[Strell]

Katamari Damacy
Gitaroo Man
Culdcept
Parappa the Rapper
Osu Tatekae Ouendan
Loco Roco
anything by Treasure

Whether you like all these games or not, they're certainly creative, innovative, at least a little bit cute, and definitely off the beaten path. And none of them came from Nintendo.

Miyamoto would probably form his own software studio, and all the consoles would fall all over themselves to get his games.

You're missing the point. Miyamoto likes to be his own boss. He likes to make games because he was gardening for fuck's sake. And no one at Nintendo gives him any guff about it.

Chances are likely that NO other company would give him a second thought when he comes around talking about Pikmin and Luigi's Mansion. They'd either tell him to piss off OR impose a lot of restrictions on what he could/couldn't do.

In which case, Miyamoto would get frustrated and stop.

True, no way to tell. But he doesn't like being under anyone's thumb, and whatever restrictions placed on his creative freedom would keep him from going to someone else.

[Strell]

No he didn't!

It is on.

[MarioColbert]

Drawing on my fine command of language, I will say nothing.


------
(being that I have to adhere to the general pomposity of most replies to this thread, you may all feast your eyes on this Mark Twin quote.)

[epobirs]

Holy crap epobirs, you jogged some childhood memories there (I'm NOT one of those who remembers Nintendo fondly from childhood - I wasn't even aware they made Donkey Kong at the time :rofl:). But I actually had one of those tape-loading devices for my Atari. Wow... I had completely forgotten what it was called. I don't think I ever got Frogger for it. Didn't it come with a pretty good Galaxian-type game? I think that's the only thing I ever played on it.

Either Communist Mutants from Outer Space or Phaser Patrol.

http://videogames.org/html/2600Stuff/Supercharger/Supercharger.html

[epobirs]

You're missing the point. Miyamoto likes to be his own boss. He likes to make games because he was gardening for fuck's sake. And no one at Nintendo gives him any guff about it.

Chances are likely that NO other company would give him a second thought when he comes around talking about Pikmin and Luigi's Mansion. They'd either tell him to piss off OR impose a lot of restrictions on what he could/couldn't do.

In which case, Miyamoto would get frustrated and stop.

True, no way to tell. But he doesn't like being under anyone's thumb, and whatever restrictions placed on his creative freedom would keep him from going to someone else.

He still works for the first company that hired him after finishing art school, yet likes to be his own boss?

Miyamoto could go out tomorrow and get $100 million in backing to head his own studio with complete creative control if he wanted that. That would mean being his own boss. It would also mean being concerned with a lot of business issues that are handled by Nintendo.

Miyamoto may be Nintendo's all-time most productive employee but he remains an employee. He apparently prefers it that way. If nintendo somehow ceased to be as a developer he would likely seek the same kind of security elsewhere.

[epobirs]

I had Donkey Kong on the 2600.

And if this were all relevant, that means that Nintendo could possibly program for PS3 and not the 360. Since the PS3 is classified the same way.

Also, I owned hardware made by Nintendo for the PC in 96-97. Controllers and mice and stuff.

None of those old license agreememtns have any bearing on current platforms. Nintendo and Microsoft would have no problem reaching a deal.

Those items were licensed, not made by Nintendo itself. They've whored out the brand for all sorts of things.

[Strell]

He still works for the first company that hired him after finishing art school, yet likes to be his own boss?

Miyamoto could go out tomorrow and get $100 million in backing to head his own studio with complete creative control if he wanted that. That would mean being his own boss. It would also mean being concerned with a lot of business issues that are handled by Nintendo.

Miyamoto may be Nintendo's all-time most productive employee but he remains an employee. He apparently prefers it that way. If nintendo somehow ceased to be as a developer he would likely seek the same kind of security elsewhere.

Case in point: Sony refusing to release certain 2D games in the states.

That's the kind of bullshit Motosan doesn't want to deal with - arbitrary restrictions placed on his products by people who are in marketing.

Again, none of this matters because 1) The Wii won't send Nintendo out of the console business, and 2) Miyamoto would just focus on handhelds.

[Michaellvortega]

I think a Wii and Xbox 360 co-dominance will grip the masses this era. At the lower price point for both systems compared to the Ps3 along with a option for MS to A:bundle more stuff with the existing packages or B:drop to $299 for a premium and $199 for a Base model. Sony will be unable to compete for the dollar of Nintendo loyalist,Maddeners and low price shoppers in the EU/NA areas.

[epobirs]

I'm not saying that the PS1 and the PS2 weren't successful. It's obvious they were. However the problem this time around is that not only is Sony going deep in the hole for the PS3 they are asking the consumer to do the same. The PS2 did well because even at $300 it seemed like a bargain with the DVD player and backwards compatibility with a library of games. Are people really excitied about Blu-Ray movies? I guarantee the general public could care less. Then you have the games which will be how much? $60? $70? $80? I don't know about you but throwing down about $700 at launch to get a PS3 and a game doesn't seem all that appealing. Yes we will get a greatest hits line but probably not until at least a year into the consoles life. Sony stands to lose a LOT in that year. PS2 sales could cushion the blow a little but I'm thinking the PS3 is going to have to be really a whole lot more amazing than the 360 because for a similar experience at a much cheaper price I'm not so sure the Sony faithful will stick around. There is already a supposed bundle with a game, a live account, and some free marketplace points. Not too mention Microsoft has the year lead where they were able to iron out the kinks....Sony is going to need time to do the same. From where we stand now most Xbox 360 games don't look any less good graphically than anything I've seen from the PS3 camp.

I never said that Nintendo is the sole source of unconventional software. I realize that most ideas came from somewhere...much like watching Sony follow Nintendo step for step. What I was pointing out with Nintendo was that they have the ability to push unconvential software to the forefront and make it something that has mass appeal. I'm not sure how many copies Little Computer People sold but I'm sure it was a heck of a lot less than Nintendogs.
If you think about it that is what Nintendo really did all along...the NES made video games popular again. They took what existed and made it accessible to everyone. The DS was a gamble and most people thought it to be a gimmick. You could also say computers have done that for years. What good is touch screen technology on a old computer game that no one will play?

Ahhh the dreamcast...yes a truely ahead of its time system. They took risks but as most people already know SEGA was deep in the whole from the Saturn and the easily hackable Dreamcast didn't help matters. I'm not sure how the dreamcast was a greater risk than the Wii is though. Here's Sony and Microsoft saying were giving you HD graphics, Storage Space out to wazzooo, a bazillon processors, and even a piece of the kitchen sink. Then here comes Nintendo with a tiny little box with a remote looking controller, No HD, and a lot less processing power. So now instead of talking about taking risks they are putting their money where their mouth is. They are leaving it up to the software and the games not the power of the box.

My Miyamoto statement was to point out that Sony and Microsoft have an image of Grand Theft Auto and Halo. Would they be as willing to put their marketing muscle into a game like Pikmin which doesn't fall into their older cooler images? You even said yourself that the XBOX didn't have some kiddie games and publishers later regretted it. Why did they not have those games to begin with? They market their systems to adults or kids who want to be adults and play that badass GTA game. So yes Miyamoto might have the freedom to do what he wants but would Sony or Microsoft wave the flag for a dog game the same it would for GTA? I don't think so. That was my point.

I disagree...you put way too much emphasis on graphics. Yes certain gamers would be swayed by the shiny graphics but overall its still the portable video game market. There are plenty of people even on this board who talk about how they had a PSP and they were excitied for it but after they got the system and some games they didn't like. So they went and got a DS. Some people also had the opposite reaction getting a DS and not liking it and then getting a PSP. So one portable gets a new sale because, in that gamers eyes one portable did not hold up to their expectations.

I don't even understand your enjoyable form comment either. A game like Tony Hawk...Underground 2 Remix on the PSP looks better than the DS version Sk8land but I'm sure a lot of people enjoy it just the same. Then you have games like Castlevania which as 3D PS2 games people don't really like them. Then you have the GBA and DS Castlevania games which are 2D and people really enjoy them. So what exactly would be consumer desires? I thought it would be for an enjoyable game but according to your statement its only about the graphics. If the graphics are great but the game plays like shit what is it worth? If said gamer is that narrow minded about gaming then he's not really a gamer....he just got one because it looked cool and his friend had one. If portables were made only to display graphics as there primary function than the PSP would win....luckily there primary function is to play games.


THere hasn't been a shred of evidence that any PS3 game will be higher than $60. No publisher has gone on record stating higher pricing. Sony execs like to play bullshit semantic games. Nothing new there. Nintendo does it, too.

Sony has to fall a long ways to be in any danger of losing their position. Microsoft is still working towards a viable business, nevermind challenging Sony. Microsoft would have to do massively better to make Sony feel they have less than 2-3 years before the PS3 must entirely carry their console business.

How many copies Little Computer People sold is hardly pertinent since the market was far smaller back then. It was a success relative to its era and predecessor to much that followed.

The NES didn't nothing to change the popularity of video games. It made the video game CONSOLE popular again. Many big companies like EA were skeptical because they made plenty of money on platforms that didn't require them to pay royalties or meet the approval of the platform's maker.

Touchscreen technology on computers is used where appropriate. It's quite big in the kiosk market. If you ever played Temple of Apshai on the HP-150, or used the HP-150 much at all, it becomes obvious why touchscreen aren't very useful for desktop systems. (Likewise lightpens) It's gets very fatiguing to constantly rasie your arm to touch the screen. Now, a Tablet PC is different story. It works for the same reason the DS works, because the user has a very close relationship to the display rather than the distance preferable in a desktop system.

The risk factor of the Dreamcast should be obvious from what happened to Sega in its wake. Not did Sega drop out of hardware, it was bought out and became a brand of Sammy. If they had foregone the Dreamcast and went straight to third party publishing as their focus they could have avoided a huge pile of debt and remained their own company.

People keep talking about Sega coming back into the platform business if a gap opens but they fail to notice that Sega doesn't exist in that respect anymore. Only a handful of people are still attached to the company from the Dreamcast era and earlier. They could just as easily work on their franchises under a different brand.

Sega was verging on collapse when they launched the Dreamcast. The Wii could bomb badly and Nintendo would still be left with $Billion in cash on hand to try again with a different trategy or whatever they decide to pursue. People tend to forget that Sega was never anywhere near Nintendo's valuation. Their period of strong profits from game consoles was a few brief years and the arcade market dried up badly by the late 90s. The two companies are nowhere near as similar as some would like to believe.

Did anyone offer Sony or Mcirosoft a Pikmin? 90% of success is showing up. The platforms cannot put marketing effort behind products that haven't been presented for them to have on their machines. Not that Nintendo promoted Pikmin all that much. If it weren't a near-launch title it might have been given the same treatment as Drill Dozer.

Microsoft cannot demand that the publisher of Songebob games do Xbox versions. They can ask and offer encouragement but until the publisher is convinced it's out of Microsoft's hands. Microsoft was prepared to put a lot of marketing behind Psychonauts but the developer failed to deliver a product after nearly three years and the investment had to be written off. Everybody says they love that game but it hasn't made a penny.

Nintendogs is just a very elaborate Tamagotchi. I'm hard put to believe any company would not give it a try with the knowledge of how profitable a fad product can be. But since Microsoft isn't doing a handheld as of yet, it would hardly apply to them. It isn't a product that would do the same kind of business on a console.

I'm not the one putting the emphasis on grpahics. I'm just going from my observations of consumers in retail outlets who frequently place great emphasis on graphics. I've been witness to countless occasions when an excelelnt game was passed up in favor of something prettier with little consideration for how good of an overall experience either offered.

Don't confuse the taste of people on boards like this for the mainstream. The mainstream audience bought a ton of the 3D PS3 Castelvanias and many of them won't give a second glance to a 2D game unless it is on a 'lesser' platform where it is expected.

If the opinion of CAGs reflected the general populace, Psychonauts would be a quadruple platinum hit.

I don't see why my statement was difficult to understand. Check out Rayman on the DS. It's horrible and nearly unplayable because they tried to reproduce graphics that were too complex for the platform. The PSP could handle it easily and measure up well to the Dreamcast or PS2 version. Likewise for Ridge Racer. The DS version was awful while the PSP version lived up to the franchise. It simply was asking too much of the DS to host something with those expectations atteched to it. Although most other similar racing titles on the DS are wretched, too. The genre just doesn't look acceptable at that res in this day and age, while limits on memory and processing also hurt badly.

Have you never played a game on an older platform like the PS1 and thought to yourself, 'I can see what they were trying to do but the result is so ugly it make the game as a whole unattractive.'

I liked the King's Field series on the PS1 but many did not and I can understand why. The graphics would all too often go abstract and the player wasn't sure what he was looking at but something somewhere was hurting him and he'd soon be dead without ever seeing what hit him. The difference in graphics made the fourth game in the series hugely more playable in addition to the eye candy aspect. I struggled with the PS1 graphics because I liked the design otherwise but the majority said, 'Screw it, I've got better things to do than strain to deal with this.'

Tony Hawk on the PSP and the DS are of the same franchise but certainly not the same game. The DS game was given a different title in acknowledgement of the need for it to differ from the more capable and capacious machines. Consequently, there are going to be some for whom Sk8teland doesn't make the grade. It's not because Sk8teland is bad on its own merits but because those consumers have certain standards it doesn't fulfill. There is no right or wrong when it comes to aesthetic tastes in luxury goods.

In that regard there are titles I would see as viable on the PSP but on the DS would be a different game, much as many GBA games have little in common with the console game of the same title. There are good DS games that could be ported to the PSP but wouldn't cut it as full price titles because they wouldn't measure up visually. The same game but the platform carries certain expectations. The options would be to tart up up the graphics or do it as a bargain title. Even without involving the touchscreen, games can work well on either platform but not be a win on both.

They're different platforms at different price points targeting different audiences. Geeks like me who get both are not part of the equation.

Graphics certainly matter. Square wisely didn't choose to reproduce the NES graphics for their revivals of FF I & II, instead bringing them up to SNES equivalence. FFIII is getting a much more radical makeover. Square knows the words 'classic FF never before seen in the US' is only magic to a certain portion of the market. The rest will look at an SNES-style game and wonder why anyone expected them to buy it, especially as a DS game.

The same has been repeated with the Mario All-Stars and MegaMan Collection. The old NES graphics are just too ugly to tolerate any longer, especially for the many who no special sentimental attachment to the NES. The time is approaching as the DS creeps downward in price that SNES graphics will no longer be acceptable and revivals and remakes will need to do better. (This may be a stumbling block for the NES portion of the Wii's Virtual Library.)

[epobirs]

Case in point: Sony refusing to release certain 2D games in the states.

That's the kind of bullshit Motosan doesn't want to deal with - arbitrary restrictions placed on his products by people who are in marketing.

Again, none of this matters because 1) The Wii won't send Nintendo out of the console business, and 2) Miyamoto would just focus on handhelds.

People love to bitch about Sony and 2D games but the market proved them right. The mainstream generally no longer cared about 2D games and would only make hits of a very tiny subset of those released in Japan.

Once again fanatical tyes mistake their taste for those of the entire market.

Nor was it a marketing decision. Marketing doesn't decide what games to bring over. Their job is to promote what is chosen. The choice was made by upper management based on their analysis. The analysis proved correct. 2D games on the Saturn di nothing to keep it out of a death spiral after it became apparent it was rarely producing comparable 3D to the Playstation. The market voted with its wallets.

You're supposing Miyamoto really gives a flying fuck what gets sold in the US. If NOA shut down while NCL remained as is, his life would hardly change at all. When has anything he did been really concerned with the audience outside of Japan?

Need I remind you that there are many successful Nintendo games in Japan that NOA has shown no interest in releasing here?

[epobirs]

Case in point: Sony refusing to release certain 2D games in the states.

That's the kind of bullshit Motosan doesn't want to deal with - arbitrary restrictions placed on his products by people who are in marketing.

Again, none of this matters because 1) The Wii won't send Nintendo out of the console business, and 2) Miyamoto would just focus on handhelds.

Do you genuinely believe Nintendo makes no demands of him? He may have been sick to death of Mario years ago but cannot escape the franchise without giving up his own pet projects.

It doesn't seem like he would have much problem working for Sony if events had cause him to jump ship ten years ago. The only truly 2D he worked on since the SNES was Wario Land 4. Everything else was remakes or at best a pseudo-2D game in a 3D environment: Yoshi's Island, Paper Mario, etc. Giving up 2D doesn't seem like it would have been much of a trauma for the guy who set some of the early standards for 3D gameplay.


Also, there is the problem of too much freedom. Editorial input is important and many creators have gone bad when nobody offer critcism on the work in progress. Robert Heinlein and Tom Clancy are two examples. The phrase that crops up is 'nobody can edit him anymore.' One of the most influential guys in SF history, John Campbell, was best known as an editor rather than a writer. His input made writers reflect on things they'd ignored and made them do better work.

I know of one NYT Bestseller that had its ending changed at the firm request of its editor. One of the authors had a problem at the climax solved by having an Army Intelligence officer shoot and kill the President of the US because he was incapable of making a vital hard stand at a critical moment. (The President was based on Carter and the Army officer was based on one of the writer's own daughter.) The argument went that no matter how many might like to see Jennifer plug Jimmy Carter in a general sense, this was going to play very badly with a huge portion of the audience. So the scene was rewritten to be a spontaneous mutiny with everyone ignoring the President and a Congressman on the scene taking the enemy's unconditional surrender.

They fought for a good while over it but the two authors came to admit their editor had been entirely right.

Wouldn't it have been nice if somebody in power had insisted the GameCube needed a real sequel to Mario 64 before something like Mario Sunshine should be done? Instead, they managed to skip ever doing a solid Mario platformer that didn't make a gimmick like a water cannon/backpack central to the game for the entirety of the GameCube's life.

We've seen it happen in movies too many time to count. Imagine if somebody sensible had been able to get George Lucas' attention to suggest he perhaps needed some help with dialogue and having his story make sense while not go overboard with trying to drag in characters for cameos when it places cute over coherence.

[Strell]

You're supposing Miyamoto really gives a flying fuck what gets sold in the US. If NOA shut down while NCL remained as is, his life would hardly change at all.

Exactly.

But do Sony and Microsoft work like that?

Microsoft certainly doesn't, given that they cannot penetrate the Japanese market well.

Sony, on the other hand, seems more despotic on what goes to America and what doesn't.

I don't know how Nintendo compares to Sony, and chances are good the comparison is somewhat equal, but the point is that Miyamoto would have additional obstacles to overcome should he become removed to another ecosystem entirely.