Nintendo: For the Win

Those are not gamecube controller ports ! They are missile ports like in mecha games. You point the revolution controller at any direction and missiles shoot out from them.

Looks good. I'm getting one for sure.

 

I love the blue color for the CD slot. I'm definatley getting a Revolution on or near launch.

 

Being a crotchety, crusty old gamer disaffected with the current state of games is a popular pasttime on the net. It usually turns out to be a tiny minority of people in the real world, though.

 

I agree.The only difference that i see is nthe revolution performing better in Japan than the GC.I believe that it will get oblitarated in the western markets by the double combo of ps3 &xbox360.

Anyway,everybody is optimistic for Nintendo at the beginning of each generation,the only things that chage are the reasons for this optimism.Last gen it was the disc format nintendo was using(finally abandoning cartridges),the new relationships with 3rd parties,the ease of development of the GC and more.Right now is the new controller and the ......DS success(in Japan cause in the west a 300$ handhled is outselling the DS).

Right now we have theories ranging from "everybody will buy a ps2 or an xbox360 AND a revolution" to "people have grown tired of traditional videogames' controls!!".Neither of the 2 will happen.In the real world i expect many more people to end up with both an xbox360 and ps3 than those who wil buy a revoltion as a secondary console.

I believe that most gamers in the U.S and Europe won't really embrace the revmote and the outdated technology will really hurt nintendo's image.I also think that the revolution won't even have a price advantage compared to the core xbox360.

 

The real question may be is this Nintendo's last stand? I like Nintendo and have owned a SNES and GC in the past. However, they may need to go the way of Sega in the Console market and just market hand held games hardware. If that happens, whoever snaps up claim to Nintendo IP for their system will see an immense boost in sales over the long term...

 

What last stand? Half of the top ten games in Japan are on the DS. And your quote "Everything about Rev so far points to being a low power, low cost, high stakes gimmick..." also applies to the DS. The higher power, higher cost, lower gimmick PSP is coming in second. I'm thinking Nintendo could ride the same formula to a win in Japan vs the PS3.

 

First of, the controller isn't that weird, it's just a mouse (with some very nice extra features). People know mice from computers and are comfortable with them.
It doesn't really "lack" more than one button compared to the two other pads (ignoring the dpad under or over the right tumbstick, which really isn't very accessible or generally useful when ingame) and that can easily be replaced with a gesture in the z-axis.

It will start out as 2nd console for many people, but will slowly crawl to #1 in terms of attach ratio, when people discover the quality of Nintendo's games and begin to dip into the backlog catalog.

HD doesn't matter.
- If there is one place where the rule of diminishing returns in CG holds true, it is definitely with regards to resolution. Good AA is far far more important.
Just look at the unAAed 360 games for evidence of that.
- +95 percent of all home tvs are not HDready

 

Very slim chance of coming out top in Japan. The only reason anyone thinks this is remotely feasible is how well the DS is doing, but that is complete bunk. Handheld success has never translated to console success, though one might try to argue that DS and Rev would "succeed" for similar reasons. GBA did gangbusters too, and it didn't help. It is still selling like crazy in N.A., yet gamecube isnt.

No chance WHATSOEVER of coming out on top overall. Just not going to happen this go around.

 

I haven't made up my mind entirely what to think about Revolution: While I definitely took interest in accessing Nintendo's old games library, I felt bummed out because of the decision against HD resolutions. I had my mind set on not buying Revolution. However, the showcasing of the controller at TGS has sparked my interest again. It seems like it could work pretty well. Though, I reserve my final jugdement until I have actually tried it.

Anyway, back on topic:
Could Revolution be a success with gamers? I don't know. All I know is that Nintendo is surely trying a very risky strategy with Revolution. It could tank. It could be successful. Since it is a very unsual console, its success or failure is impossible to predict. It might appeal to casual gamers. It might scare them away. Who knows?

 

Okay I'll bite. Nothing wrong with DS. Except that most adults wouldnt be caught dead with one! Movies, music and games in your pocket is not a gimmick. But rubbing a digital dog's belly is... See the difference? LOL

I do wish Nintendo luck if only for nostalgic reasons...

 

I think the PS3 will win on brand loyalty, games and blu-ray (if it wins).

I think Nintendo is going to shock Microsoft and come out second in installed base.

Most people I know want to have PS3 or 360, and they definitely want a revolution.

If Revolution comes in with a good price tag for the average consumer, especially the ones with family, they will get a lot of support.

Speng.

 

Frankly, unless Sony really botches the PS3, I still see them as the leader for this generation, although I believe their lead will be less impressive.

I see Rev and 360 trading places depending on the region, with perhaps a lead for Rev worldwide (although not a large one). I think the market will grow over this generation, and Rev doing a lot better than the Cube, although not nearly enough to catch with the PS3.

Nintendo's arguments about non-gamers being scared by the complexity of controllers has merits, if I judge by a (totally unscientific) sample of people I know, like my mum whom I got to play a full hour (and have a lot of fun) with Wario Ware Touched, after which she said : "you know, without all those complicated buttons those games are actually quite fun". Problem is, I can get my mum to play for a while with a simple input method like on the DS or on the Rev, but OTOH she would never buy a console for herself. The problem Nintendo sees has in fact two parts : 1) getting non-gamers to become interested into video games 2) getting said non-gamers to actually buy video games. I think the Rev can succeed at 1), not so sure about 2).

 

The DS and Revolution couldn't be further apart in sales potential and.

If anyone thinks that setting up sensors and waving around a remote without any sort of (useful) feedback is going to steal #1 from a feature-packed traditional console....hmmm.

The points in his summation are rather lame as well:

Slumping game sales -- At the end of a generation is this unusual? After 6years, the slump in PS2 hardware and software was actually rather tiny.
Unimaginative games -- Only if you want to take the viewpoint that not having cooking simulators is unimaginative. I think Xbox/PS2 have plenty of imaginative titles and I don't see this changing next-gen.
Expensive consoles -- At $199, the Revolution wont be significantly cheaper than the Xbox360 core.
Expensive games -- Are $10 cheaper games going to be a big draw? I doubt it. Nintendo's own GC games are +25% more expensive than Sony or MS games here in Australia as well.

Other points he made throughout the article:

Cheaper development -- How much cheaper? Certainly not as much as he is making out. If EA can pull of FN3 and MoH:A sticking to a 50% increase in budget (whilst recouping some of that through the above $10 hike), I don't see why most other companies can't do the same. But in the end, no matter how expensive next-gen development may be, the Revolution won't be cheap. Its not cheap to make a current-gen game.
GC second console -- "The GameCube was a cool “second systemâ€￾ because it was cheaper. The Revolution, on the other hand, is cheap enough to be “the people’s consoleâ€￾". That just plain makes no sense. GC was cheaper, and probably the same price as Rev, but hey, it'll plum work this time.
Image -- Its kiddy image works for it, its cheap image works for it, its oldschool roots work for it. We get it, nothing works against the Rev, right?
Controller -- It will be better, even if you can't see it yet ? Ok there. Might want the video you link to in your article to look interesting next time, btw. Sad the most interesting part was the billiards....

Like most articles, it gives Sony little credit for what they're delivering (Eyetoy, BR, power, features galore), MS little credit for what they're delivering (XBL, XBL Arcade, features galore).
It gave no criticism to Nintendo's decisions on the Revolution, it made out that low performance is good, wtf?
As a consumer, I don't care what it costs a developer to make a game, I just want it to look good, why don't these Revolution games look as good as my PS3 and X360 games? Oh well!
Why can't I play my favourite games either? Where is my MGS, my Halo, my GT, my DOA? Oh shucks. Oh well!
I'll just forget about that stuff, Revolution ftw.

 

I really think this is the wrong forum to discuss whether a console with lesser specs can stack up against two processing behemoths. As computer hardware afficionados of course everyone here knows that more pixels, faster processors, and more memory equates to better.

A 50% increase in budget is HUGE. I bet all $10 of the increased price didn't go directly to the developer. Keeping costs down is one of the best ways to remain profitable. Most talented independent game developers get gobbled up by the big publishers like EA and Ubisoft because costs are so high. If those can be significantly lowered maybe we can see those studios staying independent and putting out better quality games that don't necessarily need blockbuster sales to keep the company afloat.

Personally, I think Blu-ray is a non-issue. If you're really a videophile then you'll probably have a dedicated HD player connected to your HDTV. Most people will probably be pleased with their current DVD players and their SDTVs. Blu-ray is a cool feature, but it won't bring flocks of consumers into the store just to buy a PS3.

The big point that most people are missing is that Nintendo is leaving the current generation of gaming entirely. Xbox 360 and PS3 are shinier versions of what we've seen. Most people here like what they've seen and don't want to see anything else but flashier versions of the same. I don't see them as taking first place, but I do see them substantially changing the way people play games and the future consoles we'll be seeing.

 

At the price point the Rev is going for, it's not hard for me to believe it will probably outsell the 360/PS3, at least for a time.The question I come back to is whether the Rev can hold interest/3rd parties/momentum through it's life? Nintendo seems to have a problem with that...

 

Price is pretty much irrelevant. While the 'cube did not enjoy as drastic a price difference as many are predicting the Revolution will have over 360/PS3... it still didn't help it at all in any meaningful way (as in, lifting them out of last place). People are willing to pay of the quality is perceived as being there.

 

Of course not. The publisher would pocket the majority of it.

But costs aren't going to be lowered on Revolution, they are going to be increased somewhat from this gen, and be somewhat lower than PS3/X360. Those independant developers are far better off on XBLive.

Maybe, maybe not. But it is good for gamers, for gaming.

No. Nintendo want us to play the same games, they just want us to control them differently (this from their demo reel and examples given in interviews of the revolutions potential). There is far more potential for an input device like Eyetoy to change games than a remote. And this generation will see games that quite push boundaries of immersion and interactivity that you wont get on Rev. How come Advanced AI and greater physics aren't given any credit when it comes to innovating games?

 

Probably because the vast vast vast majority of videogame AI is horribly implemented and that we judge "great" is only so by comparison to the usual dreg. Ditto physics. Hopefully this can be turned around... but I'm not holding my breath.

 

But what would a game like Halo be like without great AI and physics?
Shit is the answer. Same with heaps of games. AI and physics have considerable impact on a game.

 

I dont know why is everyone conviced that they will not have 3 party suport, after all many dev already said they want to work on it, plus many devs are really worried about cost and (once that it is rumured that will cost not much more than current gen games) as you can use next gen budget to make several current gen games many dev are worried even they can even make 1 game this can be the only solution for many, a betterone or if you are a big dev why not invest in a cheap project.

So we have dev interested in Rev, a lot of buzz about Rev, safer (better for many) investiment, the possibility of make easly a new name in the market I would wonder why would Rev lack suport?

The question about the price of the games is one of the most interesting ones, because they may hit (at least) the second console in homes positions easly if they make it very cheap, but I dont see them getting new gamers by the low price of the console alone if they keep the games at such a high price (2-3x the other media at launch).

Anyway I think that if they can garante: overall lower prices (2/3 or 1/2 of the others), updated specs/engines/gfx, free and nice online suport they should easly be sucessefull (assuming that Rev is good as it seems).