Nintendo: For the Win
- Thread starter Geo
- Start date
- Status
Wow, quite an increase in trolls lately.
Look, Nintendo isn't going anywhere. They are profitable at what they do, they have a huge amount of money in their warchest, and they have a business strategy that will set them apart from the other systems, whether you like that strategy or not. Nintendo can pretty much stay in this business as long as they want.
Can they outsell Sony and Microsoft? I don't know, but I don't think they really care. They just need to stay profitable, and that's something they are extremely good at.
Look, Nintendo isn't going anywhere. They are profitable at what they do, they have a huge amount of money in their warchest, and they have a business strategy that will set them apart from the other systems, whether you like that strategy or not. Nintendo can pretty much stay in this business as long as they want.
Can they outsell Sony and Microsoft? I don't know, but I don't think they really care. They just need to stay profitable, and that's something they are extremely good at.
Serenity Painted Death
Regular
Nintendo isn't going anywhere as long as they can keep up their handheld success. Even then they still make quite a profit off their consoles, even if it appears they're not doing so well sales wise due to the fact they never sell at a loss.
Readykilowatt
Regular
I doubt that the Revolution will outsell the PS3, however, it will outsell the Xbox 360, that's for sure.
inefficient
Veteran
Nintendo is not competing with Sony. And Sony does not see Nintendo as a competitor.
It's in both parties best interests not to directly compete with each other and canibalize each others market share. (Nash Equilibrium)
Both Nintendo and Sony have stated this. It's only the fans that don't get it.
This is not Coke vs Pepsi. This is more like Mcdonalds and Starbucks.
It's in both parties best interests not to directly compete with each other and canibalize each others market share. (Nash Equilibrium)
Both Nintendo and Sony have stated this. It's only the fans that don't get it.
This is not Coke vs Pepsi. This is more like Mcdonalds and Starbucks.
inefficient said:
Even if they (Nintendo and Sony) are open about the fact that their not competing against eachother, doesn't mean that consoles sales in no way affect eachother. For every person that buys a Playstation or Nintendo Console had the potential to buy the competitors console.
First off, i read about the new medal of honor game for the ps3 and xbox 360. All the things they are doing with that game insures that power is the way. It's completely fresh, innovative, and fun and in the end that's what matters. Not to say Revolution won't be but it just can't do what ps3 and xbox360 can. With all of that power developer can suck you in their imagination and that's what gamers wanted the whole time. This is the reason movies lasts so long, they take you to another world through visuals. Revolution just can't do that. What it can do is provide fun games but can't draw you in and you need the both of them to work. Sorry, but i'm not buying the gimic...and that's just it. And again, DS success mirrored all the gameboy's but faired out better because it was a better handheld through it's POWER...
pixelbox said:
Do you realize that not suporting HD can mean they can have comparable gfx with much inferior specs (it is the CPU that concerns more here IMO).
With all of that power developer can suck you in their imagination and that's what gamers wanted the whole time. This is the reason movies lasts so long, they take you to another world through visuals. Revolution just can't do that. What it can do is provide fun games but can't draw you in and you need the both of them to work. Sorry, but i'm not buying the gimic...and that's just it. And again, DS success mirrored all the gameboy's but faired out better because it was a better handheld through it's POWER...
Why is Homero, H.G.Wells, Tolkien know? Meybe because they have done such a good work without any visual content (that even some of their works became movies).
Why people listen music if it as no visual content, because people like it.
One each time that will think about Rev should not think as a PS,XB,GC hardcore gamer would think, it is not them they want (if they get them too, better), one should think that there is people with different tastes and minds that are not atracted by todays games ( and XB360 only offer more todays games, lets see PS3) but there may be a totally new way of create/play/feel games and Nintendo wants it, so please lets have a open mind because even if every today gamer ends up hating Rev the rest of the world may love it.
PS: MoH:A seems to have some pretty new features specially in AI, I hope that Rev can hndle something like that
.Look, man...pixelbox said:POWER...
Power don't mean SHIT, really. Were you around back when NES was introduced? I was, and from what I've seen you post, it looks as if you were too, you were wearing diapers at the time and suckling your mama's teat.
NES games looked like ass compared to even the very humble C64. Resolution was a bit better, but colors were very dull and the sound was unimpressive, plus that god-awful sprite flicker could drive you mad sometimes... Yet, despite that the NES was what catched and held my interest, because of many now classic games.
Young people who started gaming perhaps around when the geforce had already been introduced on PCs have (IMO) a distorted view of what makes a game fun. Just look at Geometry Wars for the 360. Is it because of all the pixels flying around that the game has sold 50k copies thru live? Hardly. And even when considering the pixels, the gfx really are quite spartan when one thinks about it. Yet so many love this game.
It's the same with most REALLY successful games, the game doesn't depend on "POWER", because that is just a gimmick. You can't make a game out of it and expect it to be worth a damn. "POWER" isn't what makes a game worth playing, it just isn't. Loudmouthed fanpeople on the web aside, this is an universal truth.
How much "POWER" did you need to run Myst? Or Tetris?
All that said though, I expect the Rev to have decent power available anyway compared to the screen res it seems to be targetting. It just seems reasonable to assume as much.
I can't think of many really successful console games in recent years that didn't attain that success through "power", either graphically, or to fuel a gameplay mechanic - or more often both - that wasn't based on a popular license.Guden Oden said:*rant*
It's the same with most REALLY successful games, the game doesn't depend on "POWER", because that is just a gimmick. You can't make a game out of it and expect it to be worth a damn. "POWER" isn't what makes a game worth playing, it just isn't. Loudmouthed fanpeople on the web aside, this is an universal truth.
How much "POWER" did you need to run Myst? Or Tetris?
All that said though, I expect the Rev to have decent power available anyway compared to the screen res it seems to be targetting. It just seems reasonable to assume as much.
Why be a Nintendo apologist? Why not want to have your cake and eat it too?
And also, this "resolution will be the equaliser" is not going to happen. With the proposed specifications (IGN), games will literally look like slightly upgraded Xbox games, unless the GPU is some super-duper wonder chip. Which, when you're putting that stuff into the smallest console ever, isn't surprising.
Power is what helped create the games you spoke of. At the time they were great looking so i wouldn't compare the then with the now. Tech helped myst run FMV's and the engine simultaneously. Tech helped Tetris from being just another text game like the games before it. Power is needed to farther implement a designers ideas more clearly. Without that power, creations won't be fully realized leaving designers with a half-assed creation. Point in case, current generation's A.I.. Since developers don't have the nessasary power to create a life-life A.I., they are forced to "cheat". Placing NPC's behind things and having them follow a certain track. Guess what? It looks crappy and it shows, hampering the rest of the game because of the sheer oddness of it all. We know how things are suppose to look and people running into walls goes in the category of "WTF" IMO. Now with that extra power, things won't look out of place, leaving a much more believable environment.Guden Oden said:Look, man...
Power don't mean SHIT, really. Were you around back when NES was introduced? I was, and from what I've seen you post, it looks as if you were too, you were wearing diapers at the time and suckling your mama's teat.
NES games looked like ass compared to even the very humble C64. Resolution was a bit better, but colors were very dull and the sound was unimpressive, plus that god-awful sprite flicker could drive you mad sometimes... Yet, despite that the NES was what catched and held my interest, because of many now classic games.
Young people who started gaming perhaps around when the geforce had already been introduced on PCs have (IMO) a distorted view of what makes a game fun. Just look at Geometry Wars for the 360. Is it because of all the pixels flying around that the game has sold 50k copies thru live? Hardly. And even when considering the pixels, the gfx really are quite spartan when one thinks about it. Yet so many love this game.
It's the same with most REALLY successful games, the game doesn't depend on "POWER", because that is just a gimmick. You can't make a game out of it and expect it to be worth a damn. "POWER" isn't what makes a game worth playing, it just isn't. Loudmouthed fanpeople on the web aside, this is an universal truth.
How much "POWER" did you need to run Myst? Or Tetris?
All that said though, I expect the Rev to have decent power available anyway compared to the screen res it seems to be targetting. It just seems reasonable to assume as much.
If Rev "works", I think it'll gain broad acceptance and popularity. And yeah, could place Nintendo as a strong second (at least!). I think it was wise of them to realise that you can't out-playstation playstation - they took a conservative approach to try to be different with GC, but it didn't really work. They needed to be bolder, and with Rev, they are.
I'm personally very excited about it. Improving interface is the best way to move forward now, IMO (preferably in tandem with continued, large, increases in hardware power..).
I'm personally very excited about it. Improving interface is the best way to move forward now, IMO (preferably in tandem with continued, large, increases in hardware power..).
I really don't think i'll work. It looks to be too difficult to hook up to the average consumer and too comfusing with all the controller configurations and add-ons. This approch is far more different than DS so one shouldn't predict the same success. GC didn't "win" because of the hype that was ps2 and the fact that it was a stripped down playful looking console (when compared to ps2). DS was going to be successful regardless because of it's predecessors. DS is considered the next gameboy and that coupled with price for games and hardware plus previous franchises insured the same success if not more, ofcourse truth being the latter.Titanio said:
Well, the core controller is simplicity itself, and reportedly actually does what it says on the tin in terms of real 3D motion tracking.
I think 3rd party support is crucial. If Rev can ignite developer interest as DS did, it'll be away in a hack. That may be a big "if" - we'll see soon.
I think 3rd party support is crucial. If Rev can ignite developer interest as DS did, it'll be away in a hack. That may be a big "if" - we'll see soon.
- Status
