Acert93 said:
Shifty Geezer said:
Does that really affect Nintendo now though? It seems to me their next gen plan is to be bought alongside PS3 and/or XB360
Is it though? Honest question. I have not heard that from Nintendo. What I have heard is they think MS/Sony are going the wrong direction, but I have not heard them say, "We are a low cost alternative that is to be purchased alongside our competition, which is not really our competition".
They haven't given a direct quote as such, but it's certainly the impression *I* get, which may be off. Certainly they want to appeal to the masses and believe a different approach is needed to do this, and they're not going toe-to-toe with Sony and MS, which suggests whatever games you get on XB360/PS3, you'll get a diffrent sort of game on Revolution. For Halo, GTA, etc., you'll need to own an XB360/PS3. For 'Revolutionary controlled Mario snail farm simluator' ( :? ) or whatever unique games Ninty are going to offer, you'll need Revolution. To enjoy both, you'll need both, and neither one will cover all games it seems.
How many console gamers are going to buy a console and then pay money to play old games like Mario 64--especially if they already have it?
We do need to be realistic though. Will casual consumers poney up for 16bit and 32bit era games when they can have Killzone2? Halo 3? Tekken 5? Next Gen Madden?
I've no idea. I wouldn't, but plenty here seemed interested. I think it's got quite a bit of appeal for hardcore gamers who grew up on Ninty, which might be enough to get 'established'.
Will it be enough to turn around the opposite momentum.
Again, I don't think it has to. Nintendo have got by fine this generation, being nicely profitable. There's no NEED to get back to number one slot, and no need to stem the competitor's momentum as long as Revolution still sells enough games to make Nintendo money.
Even more importantly: If it is viewed as a 2nd console, it will see even LESS 3rd party support. Why port a game when gamers already have another console?
I see that as a big problem.
Which actually supports the idea it'll be asecond console. You won't get Madden and PES for Revolution - only Nintendo's own games. But to play those excellent games you HAVE to get a Revolution.
And the lack of 3rd party support will directly affect primary sales.
I disagree. Nintendo are placing their eggs in the concept of Revolution controls. Gameplay will be Revolutionary on their system whether third parties develop for it or not, because Nintendo supply the games. If you want to play Nintendogs, you need a DS, regardless of whether 3rd parties will support the platform or not. If Nintendo can get enough 'Revolutionary' games on Revolution, no matter who writes them, people will want to buy it to play those games.
And trying to be the "other" console is an unproven tactic.
True, but it also seems like a logical, viable tactic to me. I could be wrong, but I can see Nintendo tackling the market from a completely different perspective. Stop supplying the same as current gaming does, with it's known quantity of gamers, and instead appeal to a new audience who likes short games, own SDTV and will be impressed by AA'd, HDR imaging, and who love the new Revolutionary controller Nintendo have (if they ever settle on what is!). If I were CEO it might be a tactic I'd consider. Mobile phone games are becoming a big market, very profitable for the limited amount of investment needed due to technical constraints of the platform, and internet games seem to be growing too. Cut off the old world, hard-core gamers, and maybe there
is a new world of bright, easily pleased gamers out there to sell too?
