Nintendo President Iwata Talks Some More About the Revolution

FriskyTanuki

FriskyTanuki

CAGiversary!
Feedback
36 (100%)
http://cube.ign.com/articles/593/593733p1.html

In a recent interview with overseas trade publication MCV, Nintendo president Satoru Iwata talked about the company's forthcoming home console, codenamed Revolution. Iwata reiterated that the platform would be fundamentally different from other game systems, and said that its unique make-up could potentially alienate third party publishers, or in contrast draw them in.

"If the next generation platforms are going to create even more gorgeous looking games using further enhanced functionality, and if that next-gen market can still expand the games industry, then I'm afraid that third-parties may not support Nintendo," he said.

Iwata once more compared Revolution to Nintendo DS, and said that like its portable the machine could gain the eye of consumers who normally don't care about games. "On the other hand, what we are trying to do is such a different thing, and people have come to realize that the approach we have taken with Nintendo DS can actually expand the market beyond what existing platforms can do. Therefore I believe there should be more third parties who are willing to support Nintendo's new ideas."

Nintendo's president suggested that third party support for Revolution could depend entirely on whether or not publishers find the console appealing. "If we receive the support of the licensees, I believe we will expand third party support," he said. "If our ideas cannot be appealing enough, then we cannot receive third party support."

Iwata indicated that the next-generation is a risky business for all hardware manufacturers and not just Nintendo. "Already publishers are not hesitant in disclosing their concerns over next generation gaming platforms, and development costs are rising. Publishers are afraid... of whether [the next-gen] consoles can appeal to people who are not the avid game fans of today."

Nintendo plans to unveil Revolution at the May Electronics Entertainment Expo in Los Angeles. Stay tuned for more on the machine.

At least their getting it out now that they could have trouble with 3rd party support again, although that's not exactly news for them anymore.
 
so is he saying the revolution isnt gonna be as powerful as the other next gen consoles?
 
[quote name='2poor']so is he saying the revolution isnt gonna be as powerful as the other next gen consoles?[/quote]

It seems like he is saying that Nintendo will rely on game innovation rather than hardware innovation.
 
At least he is being realistic about the whole thing. It seems no one is shying away from the DS though. I just hope that what ever this DIFFERENT is that it's really something new and good. I'm not sure why Nintendo doesn't want to play the whole better graphics, more games, so on and so forth game. If they had full 3rd party support they could probably take down the others. Nintendo certainly has tried to stay innovative....I just hope it doesn't back them furthur into a corner.
 
yeah, he's also saying that its gonna be chock full of gimmicks and halfbaked ideas that no one will put to use. if you own nintendo stock, SELL, SELL, SELL!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
This is why I only respect Nintendo these days as far as gaming goes. They actually try to be innovative as opposed to making better graphics. The snes still stands as one of the best consoles to date, and I don't remember it being a graphical powerhouse. Nintendo is going to bet it all on the DS's future and Revolution. I belive these 2 systems will make or brake them.
 
The Ds system with it's "gimmicks" & "halfbaked ideas" is on pace to sell 6 MILLION by april 1st which is saying alot considering the line up of games that are availible & the fact that it's only been out worldwide for 4 months!!


If a certain feature is only availible on the "revolution" that would be HUGE!!!
Kinda like people picking the Xbox version of a game over the Ps2 version of the same game only because of Xbox Live.
 
What interesting is that the guy is being truthful about the future prospects. He knows that the Revolution is going to be different enough from the other systems that games will not be easily port-able to the Revolution. This is a lot more innovation than I thought Nintendo would do. I thought at the very least it would be kind of like the DS, where standard gaming is still an "option".

I really wonder if this innovation will be along the lines of the rumble pak, the analog stick, and Nintendo other innovations which were instantly embraced by the videogame industry as a whole... or if this is going to be along Virtual Boy lines. I think the Revolution may be Nintendo's most important system in its long history.

This E3 is going to be quite an interesting one...
 
[quote name='thagoat']yeah, he's also saying that its gonna be chock full of gimmicks and halfbaked ideas that no one will put to use. if you own nintendo stock, SELL, SELL, SELL!!!!!!!!!!!![/quote]

Why? Because there trying something different? Have you even played the DS? Nevermind. I'm not gonna even try to talk to someone who has nothing to add to this thread.

As per the actual discussions, I think its great that Nintendo is atleast letting us know 3rd party support may be tough. As long as we continue to get the AAA titles Nintendo produces, I'm fine with that.
 
If the system is going to rely on innovation, it's going to fail. The game industry thrives on Maddens and on sequels to what was fresh and innovative last year.

This has nothing to do with a lack of faith in Nintendo or wariness as to what the system will bring. Quite the opposite - something tells me that the public won't support an idea that's new and radically different than what's worked before.

And if the Revolution is good, it'll be a damn shame when that happens.
 
I truly beleive it will be the earlier leaked, Augmented Reality machine.

There are no other paths to venture.

Seriously, besides wetware, with neural interfaces, and virtual worlds,... what is left???

It will be a great console, that will most definitely be overlooked.
Then,... they'll release a "mother-of-all" consoles, in the vain of the dominant PS3.

You'll see.
When, and IF, the stock plummets,... I'd BUY, BUY, BUY.

:)
 
Looking back, i could have done fine this generation only owning a cube...and knowing someone with a ps2 for Katamari :)

I'm already on the bandwaggon for the next Nintendo system. They havent done me wrong yet (yes, i like Wario on the VB) and if its anywhere near as fun as my DS....sweet

(for some of you people: I actually do enjoy playing my DS, as does my GF...now bugger off)
 
[quote name='Gothic_Walrus']If the system is going to rely on innovation, it's going to fail. The game industry thrives on Maddens and on sequels to what was fresh and innovative last year.

This has nothing to do with a lack of faith in Nintendo or wariness as to what the system will bring. Quite the opposite - something tells me that the public won't support an idea that's new and radically different than what's worked before.

And if the Revolution is good, it'll be a damn shame when that happens.[/quote]

I agree, I just don't think people want that much innovation, they want familiarity with just a sprinkling of change. It all depends though, if the innovation is the kind that just blows you away it could be Nintendo's gen. I am highly anticipating what Ninentdo has in store, many of their features have become standard now, ie. analog stick, rumble pack.
 
The problem with playing the graphics game is that we're quickly reaching a point where all the next gen systems may be visually indistiguishable from each other. When every system can do near Toy Story level CG you no longer really have an edge.

And when you have huge electronics companies making their own proprietary hardware and others making exclusive deals for highpowered PC processors and graphics boards it's going to be difficult to stand out.

I think Nintendo is expecting to be last graphically next gen (even though any step up from the GC is still damn good) through no fault of their own but they need something to break through with.

The prorblem for 3rd parties is they know a sequel will sell faster than a new franchaise. this is awfully risky for Nintendo, I hope they have plenty of 1st party games in development right now. I also hope they have a standard controller prepared for ports from PS3 and Nextbox
 
[quote name='Alpha2']The problem with playing the graphics game is that we're quickly reaching a point where all the next gen systems may be visually indistiguishable from each other. When every system can do near Toy Story level CG you no longer really have an edge.

And when you have huge electronics companies making their own proprietary hardware and others making exclusive deals for highpowered PC processors and graphics boards it's going to be difficult to stand out.

I think Nintendo is expecting to be last graphically next gen (even though any step up from the GC is still damn good) through no fault of their own but they need something to break through with.

The prorblem for 3rd parties is they know a sequel will sell faster than a new franchaise. this is awfully risky for Nintendo, I hope they have plenty of 1st party games in development right now. I also hope they have a standard controller prepared for ports from PS3 and Nextbox[/quote]

I forget where I saw this, but were also approaching an area where people will be TURNED OFF by these "realistic" interepretations. Look at how many people felt odd about the kissing scene in Final Fantasy: Spirits Within. This seems to be the perfect generation to innovate in, as Xbox 2 and PS3 seem to be approaching these comfot limits. In this case, would it be better for Nintendo to release their console slighly AFTER the PS3? I mean, that way they would have something to compare their revolution to.
 
[quote name='pumbaa'][quote name='Alpha2']The problem with playing the graphics game is that we're quickly reaching a point where all the next gen systems may be visually indistiguishable from each other. When every system can do near Toy Story level CG you no longer really have an edge.

And when you have huge electronics companies making their own proprietary hardware and others making exclusive deals for highpowered PC processors and graphics boards it's going to be difficult to stand out.

I think Nintendo is expecting to be last graphically next gen (even though any step up from the GC is still damn good) through no fault of their own but they need something to break through with.

The prorblem for 3rd parties is they know a sequel will sell faster than a new franchaise. this is awfully risky for Nintendo, I hope they have plenty of 1st party games in development right now. I also hope they have a standard controller prepared for ports from PS3 and Nextbox[/quote]

I forget where I saw this, but were also approaching an area where people will be TURNED OFF by these "realistic" interepretations. Look at how many people felt odd about the kissing scene in Final Fantasy: Spirits Within. This seems to be the perfect generation to innovate in, as Xbox 2 and PS3 seem to be approaching these comfot limits. In this case, would it be better for Nintendo to release their console slighly AFTER the PS3? I mean, that way they would have something to compare their revolution to.[/quote]

Not really, Sony's content on not being the first out of the gate and just taking their time to be ready to release the PS3. Nintendo needs to come between the Xbox 360 and PS3 if they want to sell units like the DS is and then get the games out when the PS3 comes out to try to outdo it. There's really a lot of flexibility after the Xbox comes out because Sony is the hinge on what will happen in the next-gen because they've "won" the last two generations and can dictate how their competitors will do things, too.
 
[quote name='Gothic_Walrus']If the system is going to rely on innovation, it's going to fail. The game industry thrives on Maddens and on sequels to what was fresh and innovative last year.

This has nothing to do with a lack of faith in Nintendo or wariness as to what the system will bring. Quite the opposite - something tells me that the public won't support an idea that's new and radically different than what's worked before.
[/quote]

Then Nintendo should be golden.

Let's not forget that this is the company that has been riding a certain plumber for twenty years. Just about any other franchise you could care to mention is fresh by comparison.

Innovation in form is nice. Innovation in content would be even better.
 
[quote name='msdmoney'][quote name='Gothic_Walrus']If the system is going to rely on innovation, it's going to fail. The game industry thrives on Maddens and on sequels to what was fresh and innovative last year.

This has nothing to do with a lack of faith in Nintendo or wariness as to what the system will bring. Quite the opposite - something tells me that the public won't support an idea that's new and radically different than what's worked before.

And if the Revolution is good, it'll be a damn shame when that happens.[/quote]

I agree, I just don't think people want that much innovation, they want familiarity with just a sprinkling of change. It all depends though, if the innovation is the kind that just blows you away it could be Nintendo's gen. I am highly anticipating what Ninentdo has in store, many of their features have become standard now, ie. analog stick, rumble pack.[/quote]


This has been an interesting read...

Sometimes I wish that Nintendo would just follow the norm, instead of constantly trying to be innovative at the launch. Lord knows that Nintendo would jolly well still be #1 in the gaming world had they switched to CDs for the N64. *sigh* But I do love how Nintendo tries to do something different, and if you look at my gamelist, you'll see around 90-95% of my games are for Nintendo systems. I just want Nintendo to recapture the glory and prestige they once had years ago with the Super Nintendo. I want to see Nintendo back on top, and once they're back there, then I'd be interested in seeing what innovative creations they can come up with to hold that top spot.

Alas, instead Nintendo continues to attempt to breakthrough the market with something new and original, and I don't think the American gamer (in particular) is too accepting of that. Ultimately I don't like the way things are shaping up for Nintendo's next system at the moment. I remain hopeful, but all anyone is really talking about is the Xbox 2 and PS3, and how "powerful" (yes power seems to be the key, not innovation :roll:) they will be. Hopefully, I'll be wrong and Nintendo will be able to do something great and regain some of their lost market share from Sony and Microsoft. I'd hate to see Nintendo go the way of Sega.
 
I think to many people confuse innovation with quality. The DS thus far is highly innovative, and highly unimpressive. Hopefully, the Revolution will not follow suit.
 
Hmm this is going to be interesting. Cube was second in graphics, now it will be last (assuming they lean too much into innovation over power) XBox will be second, and the Playstation will be first? I just hope Nintendo continues to push out the killer aps like Wind Waker, Mario Sunshine and the like. Nintendo has had some very good first party titles, and as long as those exist I'll always have a Nintendo console...

But it looks like this time around Nintendo will be last in my priority list.
 
I've liked Nintendo over the years, but if all their doing is making innovations in gameplay on standard gaming hardware (use a control pad to play games on a tv) and they're going to lose a lot of 3rd party support, they might as well pack in the console making and concentrate on making games (excepting handhelds). Zelda would play just as well on an xbox and ps2 as it does on the cube, and nintendo would have made a ton of money selling zeldas and marios on the better selling consoles.

Nintendo may be a gaming company, but it's still a company, and their board needs to start making decisions like they run a company instead of acting like a bunch of 50-year old fanboys (fanmen?) of their brand.

Their job is twofold- to make money and to grow their brand, and they're doing at best a mediocre job of doing either. Introducing their machines last in the last three console generations (SNES, N64, cube) cost them progressively worse losses in market share, and it's finally reached a point where there is no doubt that they will have the worst 3rd party support in the next console generation, even though the competition won't even start for over a year. It doesn't matter if you have the best hardware in a generation (SNES, maybe N64) or if you pump in truckloads of money into marketing, or *gasp* if you make the best games. You can't mess with established market share. Once you get a PS2 into a home, you've already won mindshare and created biases in that home against other consoles. I knew that the PS2 was the worst console among the 3 by the time the xbox and the cube rolled out. But I stuck with the PS2 by itself for a long time for a lot of reasons- estbalished library, games that had already dropped in prices, high prices of consoles at introduction, no time for more than one console, etc.

As a rule, the console that rolls out first ends up with a huge advantage in the quantity of games. That's how sony got ahead in the last two generations, and how the genesis held the SNES to a tie. Yes, this is sad, but that's how the videogame industry works, and it's about time nintendo faced this truth. The console with the biggest library of games wins. It's as simple as that. For every Windwalker, there's a GTA. The competition isn't between the triple A titles, it's in numbers and the breadth of genres covered.

Say what you will about Microsoft, they're marketing and business masters. Why release a product that will be eclipsed in a year by superior hardware? Because they're confident that they can grab that market share in that year between the xbox 2 and ps 3, and I don't doubt that they will. I'd be willing to bet my money on microsoft increasing their market share in the next console generation.

If Nintendo can't keep 3rd party support, it'll be forced out of the home console making business, it's as simple as that. They've been arrogantly pushing around 3rd party publishers for years, and once the publishers had other options, they dropped Nintendo. Think back to gaming history. SNES was getting beaten in sales by the Genesis, until a certain 3rd party game called Street Fighter 2 single-handedly brought it even with the Genesis. And that was the last great victory by Nintendo in 3rd party relationships.

Nintendo overcharged their 3rd party publishers an exorbitant amount (relatively) for licensing back in the day. Then Sony charged a lot less with the PS1. Remember the whole censorship issue? The bruhaha over Mortal Kombat on SNES vs. Genesis? At least nintendo wisened up by Mortal Kombat 2 and relaxed their stance on censoring 3rd party efforts. Square practically begged Nintendo to go CD for storage, then dumped Nintendo during the whold PS1-N64 era. Bottom line is, Sony and Microsoft bend over backwards to please 3rd party publishers (not withstanding Sony's quirky controls on what's acceptable for translation to the western market). Nintendo overestimated their market dominance in their treatment of 3rd party publishers, and they were rewarded with their current status of being number 3.

If they're not going to be making the licensing money from 3rd party titles, they need to not even release the revolution. I don't say this to crap on Nintendo. I say this in hopes that they don't repeat sega's mistakes, which makes me shake my head (selling visual concepts? for 20 mil? wtf?) Sega waited too long to pull out of the hardware market. By the time they did, they'd already lost too much mindshare among videogame consumers. Worse, I think they lost their talent pool. (people tend to jump off ships that are taking on water). And now they're a shell of their glory years, with great intellectual property and seemingly little developer talent to do anything with it (besides AM2 I suppose). I'd hate to see Nintendo churn out Zeldas and Marios and Metroids and have people not buy them because they have bad taste in their mouths from the failures of their hardware.

I have a lot more to write, but this somehow became my longest internet posting ever, so I'll end here and put on my flame-retardant.
 
What exactly is it that scares people away from innovation? Obviously Nintendo is taking a MASSIVE risk. We know this. But it really seems to me they are the only company who actually has the BALLS to attempt it. Like my earlier post in this thread states yeah it will be really hard for them to not back themselves into a corner but for the love of gaming let them try. If everyone is content with playing the next Madden year after year after year after year have fun.

We all agree that Mario has been beaten to death and appeared in WAY to many games. Maybe Nintendo realizes that those titles can't carry the flag forever and now they want to take a different path.

It would be pretty awesome to have two major consoles (XBOX 2 + PS3) play the graphics games and then along comes Nintendo with something REALLY NEW AND EXCITING beat out those consoles. How far can graphics go? I am probably among the 3 people who don't care for Grand Theft Auto but I personally don't want to see every detail on some guys face right before he gets shot in the head. If I want GTA I'll watch the news. I want to play a game that takes me to a different place. Somewhere that you can't describe by pointing to it on a street corner.

If Nintendo scores big with their new console the other companies will follow just like they did before. Nintendo has been around a LONG time and they make up a big portion of what gaming is today. This may be a make or break point for them but it's their choice.

Without any innovation we never would have had 3D gaming, rumble controllers, so on and so forth....so for the love of gaming let Nintendo try something new.

Go ahead FLAME AWAY...
 
[quote name='jkam']What exactly is it that scares people away from innovation? Obviously Nintendo is taking a MASSIVE risk. We know this. But it really seems to me they are the only company who actually has the BALLS to attempt it. Like my earlier post in this thread states yeah it will be really hard for them to not back themselves into a corner but for the love of gaming let them try. If everyone is content with playing the next Madden year after year after year after year have fun.

We all agree that Mario has been beaten to death and appeared in WAY to many games. Maybe Nintendo realizes that those titles can't carry the flag forever and now they want to take a different path.

It would be pretty awesome to have two major consoles (XBOX 2 + PS3) play the graphics games and then along comes Nintendo with something REALLY NEW AND EXCITING beat out those consoles. How far can graphics go? I am probably among the 3 people who don't care for Grand Theft Auto but I personally don't want to see every detail on some guys face right before he gets shot in the head. If I want GTA I'll watch the news. I want to play a game that takes me to a different place. Somewhere that you can't describe by pointing to it on a street corner.

If Nintendo scores big with their new console the other companies will follow just like they did before. Nintendo has been around a LONG time and they make up a big portion of what gaming is today. This may be a make or break point for them but it's their choice.

Without any innovation we never would have had 3D gaming, rumble controllers, so on and so forth....so for the love of gaming let Nintendo try something new.

Go ahead FLAME AWAY...[/quote]

Well said! It's nice to hear from someone with a brain and the ability to rationalize. I'm sick of hearing people say "N1nT3nd0 is teh G1MmicK!!!!11!1" without providing any statements to back up such absurdity.

Your views are pretty much my own, so I have nothing further to add except: Don't draw conclusions just yet. None of us have seen the Revolution or know for sure what it can do. I'd suggest everyone wait until E3 before you start crying "Gimmick! Gimmick!" You may even be impressed.

It would be laughable to see the doom-forecasting naysayers here typing "Wow, I think I'm buying a Revolution next year."
 
[quote name='Maverick CRV'][quote name='jkam']What exactly is it that scares people away from innovation? Obviously Nintendo is taking a MASSIVE risk. We know this. But it really seems to me they are the only company who actually has the BALLS to attempt it. Like my earlier post in this thread states yeah it will be really hard for them to not back themselves into a corner but for the love of gaming let them try. If everyone is content with playing the next Madden year after year after year after year have fun.

We all agree that Mario has been beaten to death and appeared in WAY to many games. Maybe Nintendo realizes that those titles can't carry the flag forever and now they want to take a different path.

It would be pretty awesome to have two major consoles (XBOX 2 + PS3) play the graphics games and then along comes Nintendo with something REALLY NEW AND EXCITING beat out those consoles. How far can graphics go? I am probably among the 3 people who don't care for Grand Theft Auto but I personally don't want to see every detail on some guys face right before he gets shot in the head. If I want GTA I'll watch the news. I want to play a game that takes me to a different place. Somewhere that you can't describe by pointing to it on a street corner.

If Nintendo scores big with their new console the other companies will follow just like they did before. Nintendo has been around a LONG time and they make up a big portion of what gaming is today. This may be a make or break point for them but it's their choice.

Without any innovation we never would have had 3D gaming, rumble controllers, so on and so forth....so for the love of gaming let Nintendo try something new.

Go ahead FLAME AWAY...[/quote]

Well said! It's nice to hear from someone with a brain and the ability to rationalize. I'm sick of hearing people say "N1nT3nd0 is teh G1MmicK!!!!11!1" without providing any statements to back up such absurdity.

Your views are pretty much my own, so I have nothing further to add except: Don't draw conclusions just yet. None of us have seen the Revolution or know for sure what it can do. I'd suggest everyone wait until E3 before you start crying "Gimmick! Gimmick!" You may even be impressed.

It would be laughable to see the doom-forecasting naysayers here typing "Wow, I think I'm buying a Revolution next year."[/quote]

I agree with both of you. The problem is that we don't have as big of an impact on gaming as the masses and casual gamers. There are way more of them who would cough off their money in a heartbeat to own the "coolest" games or consoles on the market. If there were more people like us who weren't as shallow about games and actually cared more about the game rather than the graphics, then the Revolution would probably be #1.

I think it is great that nintendo is taking this direction because as of now I am satisfied with this gen and am not really interested in next gen conoles. The Revolution might change my mind if done correctly. I have a feeling that they will have a great idea but it won't catch on. People would rather buy GTA and Halo sequels than play something original. If dont correctly, I think it will definetly change gaming as we know it but it might be a little too early to bring it in just yet.

I really would hate to see nintendo go down but I don't think they can have a console just strive on innovation. They will still need to offer the standard games that PS3 and XBOX2 will have.

Then again, none of us have any idea what they are going to offer so we can't really say for sure. Right now I am picturing the revolution being a system that is full of games such as the Eyetoy, DDR, Donkey Konga, Katamari and other niche titles. Sure they are all great, buy IMO they can't support a system alone.
 
Mbstuff,
I'm not quoting you, because your post was long, but I disagree with you on 2 particular points:
I don't think Nintendo is trying to grow the brand neccessarily. They want a profit for now and for the future, but I don't think they have to grow the brand in ways that your neccessarily thinking. I think Nintendo is very happy with where they are currently in the mix, and they aren't concerned with being number 1.

Secondly, your dead wrong about the console that comes out first has the advantage. That is rarely the case. SNES had more sales than the Genesis, PS2 blew away the Dreamcast. PSX had more than the Saturn. What happens is, the systems are all released, and as one becomes dominate, history is re-written to fit it. So, if the Dreamcast was the biggest system, it would be considered this generation, but since it wasn't, it is considered last generation.

I wish I could find old articles about the Cube before it came out. I think the same sort of stuff was being said about it. Let's face it, this isn't a change for Nintendo. Nintendo caters to it's own market, and I don't think they really care about the being number 1. Overall, you know what you'll get with Revolution, you'll get 2-4 must play games every year, and stretches where you have very little new to play (at least worth playing) for months. It's been the Nintendo way since really the NES days, and I don't see it changing. Let's face it, it works.
 
My biggest concern is that Nintendo is going to make a machine so different from Sony's and Microsoft's that publishers won't bring their multi-console games to the Revolution.
 
lordxixor101, you're right that gaming history retroactively sets console generations based on winners. Still, coming out first has a huge advantage. The NES enjoyed a 95% market share. That should have translated into market dominance during the SNES and Genesis era, but because the Genesis came out a full two years ahead of the SNES, Sega was able to reach a peak of 65% market share (I assume during the Sonic craze) before Nintendo regained a 60% market share later as the SNES matured. The numbers are from http://editorials.arrivenet.com/ent/article.php/1298.html

It's all about weighing the benefits of waiting for superior technology versus releasing a system earlier. Sega made the right decision with the Genesis (aided by Nintendo's numerous delays with the SNES) and the wrong one with the Saturn. The dreamcast is an entirely different issue. In my opinion, Sega did just about everything right with the dreamcast, at least in the US, since I don't know what happened in Japan. Sadly, I don't think they could overcome consumer perception of the successive failures of the 32x and the Saturn. Look at Nintendo now. No matter what we want or how we feel about Nintendo, the fact of the matter is that Nintendo's console has lost market share in two consecutive generations. The odds are stacked against the Revolution in gaining third party support. And history shows that it will be awfully hard to forge ahead with 2-4 must-have first party titles a year and lackluster 3rd party support and still have a viable platform.

In the end, the videogame industry operates like any other consumer industry. Consumers want quality and quantity, not necessarily in that order. We need a variety of good games. The only way you accomplish that is to make sure third party publishers release games on your console. I love my dreamcast. You want to talk about innovation? It was the first console to bundle an on-line adapter. It had Seaman and Samba de Amigo, for crying out loud. But it never did get good 3rd party support, and now Nintendo is headed the same way.

Innovation is all good, but if you want to make money, you go where the market is. You create the largest user base and market share possible, and the innovation will follow naturally, since the user base is so large it will support niche titles. Eye-toy? Dance and karaoke games? Katamari Damacy? Little-known strategy rpgs? Steel battalion? They don't end up on Nintendo, unless nintendo makes it themselves.

Look at the strategy of the xbox. I know many of you criticize it for being the bland console where multi-platform titles go, with the least amount of AAA exclusives. But you can't argue with their business strategy- a company with no console history brought out a console late against competition. But it garnered incredibly strong 3rd party support (outside of Japan), and eventually it got enough market share that even Japanese companies support it. Now they're in a pretty good position.

I don't worry about the revolution. I know it won't be my only console between the three in the next console generation. I finally bought a gamecube a few months ago and have been amassing gamecube games, but Nintendo won't make any money off of me buying $20 titles. And they won't make money off of me on the revolution, even though I will buy one at some point. You make money selling $50 games on release week to people who HAVE to have that game right then and there, on selling massive amounts of titles to casual gamers. They don't make money off of cheapasses like us who watch the videogame market and industry closely. And like I said before, watching the downfall of Sega makes me worry about Nintendo, if nothing else just for the sake of the Zelda and Metroid series.

And if the Nintendo board is really satisfied with being number 3, they all need to go take a seminar or two at a business school.
 
nintendo stock crashing!!!! sell, sell, sell!!!!! the only reason that the ds is selling is because its the latest and greatest. the dreamcast also had a great launch as far as selling systems. well, we all know where that ended up. in conclusion, nintendo sucks. they might want to take the sega road and just make software. mario would be a big hit on any system!!
 
[quote name='mbstuff']lordxixor101, you're right that gaming history retroactively sets console generations based on winners. Still, coming out first has a huge advantage. The NES enjoyed a 95% market share. That should have translated into market dominance during the SNES and Genesis era, but because the Genesis came out a full two years ahead of the SNES, Sega was able to reach a peak of 65% market share (I assume during the Sonic craze) before Nintendo regained a 60% market share later as the SNES matured. The numbers are from http://editorials.arrivenet.com/ent/article.php/1298.html

It's all about weighing the benefits of waiting for superior technology versus releasing a system earlier. Sega made the right decision with the Genesis (aided by Nintendo's numerous delays with the SNES) and the wrong one with the Saturn. The dreamcast is an entirely different issue. In my opinion, Sega did just about everything right with the dreamcast, at least in the US, since I don't know what happened in Japan. Sadly, I don't think they could overcome consumer perception of the successive failures of the 32x and the Saturn. Look at Nintendo now. No matter what we want or how we feel about Nintendo, the fact of the matter is that Nintendo's console has lost market share in two consecutive generations. The odds are stacked against the Revolution in gaining third party support. And history shows that it will be awfully hard to forge ahead with 2-4 must-have first party titles a year and lackluster 3rd party support and still have a viable platform.
[/quote]

You're missing a critical factor here. The Genesis would have led a lingering death of an existence with just a few high points like Sonic if it weren't for a bit of litigation. You see, Nintendo of America in the 8-bit and early 16-bit days made third party publishers sign contracts that included an excusivity clause. Any game published ona Nintendo platform could not appear on a competing US platform for a minimum of two years, which effectively rendered it useless to any other platform. One of the great deficits of the TurboGrafx was that so many of the high recognition titles in Japan for the PC Engine couldn't be released for the US version because Nintendo already had that title locked up. I had direct experience with these contracts as an associate producer on a NES game. The company was also very friendly with NEC, mostly because they were the first to offer a CD-ROM option which was the direction our stuff was all headed. We had to divvy up all of the company's titles into things that would go on the NES for the money and stuff that would go on the TurboGrafx in hopes of a bright future.

NEC wouldn't sue Nintendo over those contract terms because Nintendo was a major customer for NEC semiconductor products. The guys in the video game division always got outvoted when it came to the possibility of pissing off a major customer. Sega wasn't in the same position and without access to the major developers the languishing Genesis would never take off. They took Nintendo to court and when it became apparent they going to get a serious spanking Nintendo settled. This happened about a year after the SNES launched and kept Nintendo from ever again repeating the market share they enjoyed in the 8-bit era. By this time the TurboGrafx was in such bad shape nobody was interested in publishing those previously unavailable games in the US. If Sega had simply litigated a few years earlier things would very different in the video game business.

Sega was up against more than a string of failed Genesis add-ons and the Saturn failure when it came to Dreamcast. They were seriously in the red when it came revenues. They were like an elderly but active person who seems to get around alright but could be put on their deathbed by the slightest misadventure. Sega lacked the resources to meet challenges like the PS2 wave of hype. All three of today's console companies are on much better footing. In some ways Sony is in the worst shape as an overall company. IN fact the video game division has been the consistently strongest part of the company. Ken Kutaragi is seen as taking a demotion but they seriously need him focused on the game business. Some people belong in the Pentagon while others are more valuable in the field.

Nintendo has massive cash reserves but they too could have serious problem if they had a prolonged cashflow crisis. OF the three, Microsoft is strongest in terms of net revenue and diversification of positive revenue sources.

None of these companies is going to dry up and blow away like Sega for a very long time.
 
all of this reminds me of one really good thing about the Virtual Boy. Bear with me, I'm not kidding here.

The VB was self-contained as a venture. If it did well it stood to benefit from Nintendo's continued support. But if was a crashing failure, as in reality, the damage was limited to a large degree. The worst Nintendo had to show for it was a tax writeoff and minor bad PR since most of the public never knew it existed.

If Nintendo is knowingly pursuing a course for their next flagship system that will likely alienate third party publishers, I have to question their reason. Wild and wacky extensions of a base product are good things to attempt so long as they aren't to costly if they fail. But that base platform need to provide the basic elements of a game console in a fashion competitive for the era. Things like bongo controllers are great but you wouldn't want a machine that only offered such input devices and had standard controllers as we've come to know them.

This could all be Iwata hyperbole. It would be far from his first such outburst but I can't help wondering how many cliffs Nintendo can charge off of before becoming the next big publisher to give up having their own platform.
 
[quote name='pRINCESS-iSABELA']Nintendo Revolution is the system I'm waiting mostly for(priority over PS3 and X2).[/quote]

me too. it is the only one i would even remotely consider buying at launch. for some reason, with everyone dogging the gamecube, it makes me want to go out and play the gamecube more. every multiplatform game i buy will usually be the nintendo one. maybe i'm a fanboy now? but i think it's because i like the system, their image, and the fact that they have the best controller of the three (even without the wavebird.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top