Nintendo unveiling next-gen console at E3 2005
- Thread starter Megadrive1988
- Start date
Ah, at last some confimation of further involvement from NEC. ^_^ (Not unexpected, but hey.)
Not much to go on, but at least hopefully this will quelch all the misinterpretations. It would be nice for them to have been more vocal and definitive months back, though. I guess the GPU will be suitably different between N5 and Xbox2, but what might the CPU look like? Probably get more similarities that way. ^_^
Not much to go on, but at least hopefully this will quelch all the misinterpretations. It would be nice for them to have been more vocal and definitive months back, though. I guess the GPU will be suitably different between N5 and Xbox2, but what might the CPU look like? Probably get more similarities that way. ^_^
Megadrive1988
Veteran
showing the nextgen console THIS year would be too early and pretty much signal the decline of Gamecube.
Nintendo64 launch in 1996 - Nintendo announced Dolphin at E3 1999, about three years after the Japanese N64 launch, but Dolphin/Gamecube was not really revealed until August of 2000. about 4 years after N64 came out.
Gamecube is not 3 years old, and still wouldn't be by E3 2004.
by E3 2005, it would be the time to start at least a partial unveiling of the next system, assuming its not coming out until 2006.
Nintendo64 launch in 1996 - Nintendo announced Dolphin at E3 1999, about three years after the Japanese N64 launch, but Dolphin/Gamecube was not really revealed until August of 2000. about 4 years after N64 came out.
Gamecube is not 3 years old, and still wouldn't be by E3 2004.
by E3 2005, it would be the time to start at least a partial unveiling of the next system, assuming its not coming out until 2006.
Qroach said:
The market it does work like that . Yes people do expect it to only be current for another year and a half .
Unless they haven't been watching nintendo consoles lately .
The consoles have a fixed life span . THe company that releases it dictates that schedual .
Nintendo dictates the schedual of the gamecube. People who buy a gamecube right now for a 100$ do not expect to get new games for it 5 years from now .
They know they are buying it late in thier life. They remember the adds for it being 200 , 150 , 150 with free game . They know its been around .
Why would they expect anything else . At any time a product can become unsupported with new content . That goes for any video game systems .
If sony felt they needed to release a ps3 tommorow then they can and thats the way it works. Thos who bought the system at 300$ had a much longer life from it than those who bought it for 180 and that is expected when you buy a product at a cheaper price point
randycat99
Veteran
I never got that impression at all. It has the cheapest price of the lot because it seeks a strategy to capitalize on underselling the competition. As for its lifespan- well, I would say it is intended to last however long its competitors last in this generation. Now if GC was a relic of the previous generation and was selling at firesale prices, then yes, that would suggest that whoever buys it, does so with the knowledge that it, and games for it, won't be around for too much longer.
randycat99
Veteran
It might well be, but lower price is hardly suggestive or conclusive that that must be their intent. It's just cheaper than the competition, but for all intents and purposes, it was meant to live out the span of however long the current generation lasts.
Yes, anything could work. Though I don't agree with your price and lifespan of the product analysis. But for Nintendo 4 years cycle isn't too bad. I mean their hand held, is like GBA, GBA SP, Nintendo DS, GBA2, these products probably going to be out in a span of like 5 years.
If they can juggle the same with consoles, it'll be mind boggling
I'm not suprised, and you aren't but none of us are the typical game buyers out there. We're a small fraction of the population that keeps current on game oriented news. All I can say is that parents that don't keep current on the gaming news certainly wouldn't have any idea if it's lifespan was coming to a close unless someone told them.
Btw, JVD 99 bucks is not the firesale price where people expect something to be replaced. That may be the price they want it to sell for as we've all heard that 99 doallars is the sweet spot for console price points.
After all, nintendo keeps sending out completly mixed signals on what it wants to do in the future. Months back they said the GC was gonna last until 2007, then a few days ago they said they wanted to extend the life of the product with peripherals, now they say the new console will be shown at E3 2005.
Btw, JVD 99 bucks is not the firesale price where people expect something to be replaced. That may be the price they want it to sell for as we've all heard that 99 doallars is the sweet spot for console price points.
After all, nintendo keeps sending out completly mixed signals on what it wants to do in the future. Months back they said the GC was gonna last until 2007, then a few days ago they said they wanted to extend the life of the product with peripherals, now they say the new console will be shown at E3 2005.
Evil_Cloud
Veteran
When Sega put all resources on Saturn (i.e. giving up MegaDrive, 32X and MegaCD), they left the 16-bit market all to Nintendo, which made loads of money on SNES that year.
I think that if Nintendo continues to make great (but MORE) software, and if they keep their price at $99 - $50 something, they can make a big profit on software sales in 2004-2005-2006 or even 2007/2008. Microsoft and Sony will focus almost every resource on their Xbox 2 and PlayStation 3 launches. So Nintendo COULD have a similar situation.
I think that if Nintendo continues to make great (but MORE) software, and if they keep their price at $99 - $50 something, they can make a big profit on software sales in 2004-2005-2006 or even 2007/2008. Microsoft and Sony will focus almost every resource on their Xbox 2 and PlayStation 3 launches. So Nintendo COULD have a similar situation.
I don't think those are mixed signals really. Certainly those three things aren't actually contradictory to each other.
I think what JVD is saying has some truth to it. In that the majority of people out their will realise that they only have a couple of years of support if they buy a GC now. They'll all have seen the $199 ads when it was released in 2001 so they know this product isn't new. I mean its been halved in price and so it makes sense to then presume that its lifespan is already at least half gone. In other words I agree that if you buy a console full price you expect to get a longer lifespan from that then from a console that is now half price. But that's also just the same for XBox and PS2.
I don't really agree that because GC started cheaper that means its lifespan should be shorter then the other systems. Again their is some truth their since starting lower means less price drops are possible before hitting 'end of the line' prices. Also the fact that your paying less, in most markets, usually lends itself to "ok this may not last as long as the more expensive version, but its cheaper". But in general I don't think GC was released with a lower price then XBox and PS2 because it was planned to bow out early this gen.
nobie said:
YAY, can't wait for the next 2 years of pre-rendered-emulated-realistically-possible-on-new-consoles "demos" from MS, Sony and even Nintendo... :|
Similar threads
