Dissapointed in Nintendo E3 Showing?? [Archive]

maniac_flip

05-26-2005, 04:32 AM

I was totally blown away by Nintendo's E3 showing or non-showing. I'm saying this after the "secret press conference." If you want details, go check out IGN.com's Revolution FAQ. But I will do my best to sumarize it for you. The Revolution was at the secret press conference and it will blow the drives off the competition. But from the FAQ really, what I would consider to be the greatest thing about Fevolution is that it will be backwards compatible. Way backwards. Like to the NES. NO JOKE. Go read the FAQ. Classic Game Downloads. Enough said. Hell, I'm sold on it. It will most likely be my next generation game system. Plus Revolution looks like it isn't going to bend my wallet over backwards like the PS3 (I think it will retail at over $300) and XBox360 (+$200). Revolution and Zelda were all Nintendo needed to have a good show, really.

So if you want to be disappointed at someone, go be disappointed at Microsoft or Sony. They had good shows too, but Perfect Dark and Xbox360 really shaping up to be just an update of the XBox didn't sell me, nor did the recreation of the FFVII intro on the PS3. Now if FFVII were to be remade for PS3, then Sony would have gotten my vote.

nick64

05-26-2005, 04:46 AM

The games that were shown for X-360 doesn't look too impressive though, hell, some even looked like standard X-box games. Gears of War looked the 'most impressive' to some extent, while Perfect Dark looked ok and Rare is really concentrating a massive FPS multiplayer sensation.

but if the same trend this generation is passed onto the next generation, Sony should win this one with ease again.

DB27

05-26-2005, 05:17 AM

Re: my earlier comment

I guess I should modify that and say that the Revolution news was an afterthought. Yes they created a lot of stir with their games, but I was answering the topic question (re: how they handled Revolution info and news at E3). They did well with their games and such, I just think they didn't handle the Revolution announcement as well as they could have.

As well, they could have showed at least a few demos of games in development for Revolution, but as far as I can tell the only games shown were for the GBA, DS or GC.

Also, as I said before, I have nothing for or against any of the companies (including Microsoft). I'll buy what best entertains me, and if the Revolution can show better support for the turn-based RPG and SRPG crowd then I'll give them my money.

Re: XBox360

I agree that most of the games didn't look so hot, but Oblivion seems to be a step above anything available on this generation console (although I'll probably get it for PC instead).

Re: backward compatability of Revolution

I honestly think that is not going to be such a big issue for most gamers. Yes, there are some of us here that still play the oldies, but the majority of kids and even adults today aren't going to want to play older games except maybe SMB or maybe Zelda games. Since I already have multiple ways to play these games, doesn't matter to me in the slightest. As far as I can tell, they also didn't announce what it will cost to play them, either.

Re: secret press conference and Revolution FAQ / Specs

Overall, my opinion is that unless Nintendo does a better job of getting third party developers onboard to make a wider variety of games, they are going to have a hard time gaining market share. Xbox has a the best hardware of any console this generation, but didn't do as well as they would have liked because they have very impressive sports games and online FPSs, but lack a good selection of kids games and essentially have no RPGs (the reason I don't own an XBox). The PS2 has the worst specs of any current gen console, but it has the largest library and widest variety of games available. I could care less if Sony flops with the PS3, but they'e done well so far in appealing to the largest amount of people. I think that if Nintendo can do that, they will do very well with Revolution.

chompy

05-26-2005, 05:19 AM

I could never be disappointed with nintendo.

i love them.

i really really do ^_^

all of my nintendo consoles (handheld or otherwise) are still 100% working.

the only nintendo hardware i don't have is the virtual boy ^^

the revolution to me looks like the best console.

obviously, in true "me" style, i will get all of the consoles anyway...but i have a feeling i will be playing on the revolution the most.

gameplay is everything, and that is something that only the true meisters of gaming can deliver.

chompy pays homage to the greatest games makers ever.

nintendo, sega, koei, square-enix, nippon-ichi, tecmo (even though they sued one of my favourite sites :( ), capcom

anyone who could put SCEI/SCEE or microsoft in with those heroes of gaming, is seriously deluding themselves.

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3140640

what everyone wants:

a picture of the console
its specs (what graphics can it do basically)

what matters:

jap release date
3rd party support
1st party support
games

nintendo shan't disappoint ^_^

DB27

05-26-2005, 05:33 AM

the revolution to me looks like the best console.

It may very well turn out to be the best of the three, but how can you say that at present, since we know virtually nothing about it or the third party support?

Honestly, we still know very little about any of the consoles, and things can certainly change between now and launch date (esp. for Sony and Nintendo, since they are launching next year).

chompy

05-26-2005, 05:48 AM

It may very well turn out to be the best of the three, but how can you say that at present, since we know virtually nothing about it or the third party support?

Honestly, we still know very little about any of the consoles, and things can certainly change between now and launch date (esp. for Sony and Nintendo, since they are launching next year).

3rd party support has never been particularly strong for nintendo

they do have the best (undisputably) 1st party games pro and dev support.

if history is anything to go by...sony will get the most 3rd party support...but the cost of developing games on the PS3 (due to its hardware structure, and the nature of the CELL, not to mention the graphical challenge for any developers computer) will mean that sony will have to make alot of in-house games aswell...

3rd parties go for the most "consoles-in-homes" and XB360 i predict will have this by a long shot...where nintendo will have a guaranteed market of hardcore followers but it will be fairly niche in comparison (think: apple mac)

nick64

05-26-2005, 06:08 AM

third party support, so far all three have gota little wealth of developers willing to help them out.

Nintendo has stated that they can attract smaller developers as well as larger developers to their console because their console would be easier and cheaper to develop than X-360 and PS3. atm, Square-Enix and Bandai have pledged 'allegiance' to REV

Sony will undoubtedly have lots of third-party support if current trend for PS2 continues.

Microsoft, well they do have support but not to an extent of Sonys (imo), and with this console coming out very soon, the games must be good to back up Microsoft's pre-emptive advantage.

DB27

05-26-2005, 06:41 AM

I will say this: PS2 was supposedly (and may still be) the hardest and most time-consuming to program for, but they certainly had no trouble getting loads of third party support.

I think that Xbox360 will have the most "consoles-in-home" in the US, but PS3 will likely claim that title in Japan. I think the Nintendo - Apple/Mac comparison is very apt. There is no way they are going away, and will likely gain market share, but I just don't see them overtaking Xbox in the US and PS3 in Japan (and I think overtaking the PS3 in the US is going to be unlikely as well, but that remains to be seen). Pricing could do an lot to help in this regard, if they can keep the Revolution under $200.

maniac_flip

05-27-2005, 03:38 AM

How much of a role will pricing play in the next generation console wars? What do you all think? Looking back at say the Neo Geo, which was the most powerful and expensive system in its time, I think that pricing will be crucial for next generation systems.

As for market share, I don't think 360 will be able to gain as large a base as PS2 did. Largely because I don't think Microsoft has courted enough of the right kind of 3rd party support. Mainly Square-Enix. I did hear they picked up an spin-off studio comprised of some ex-SE people. Final Fantasy sells consoles; strange but true don't you think? Xbox had some noteable RPGs, but none worth switching systems for. I will say that Xbox is hands down the best FPS platform :)

Nintendo's been making the right moves, signing third party support like Namco, Square-Enix, and Bandai while still maintaining its strong in-house support. I think Nintendo will be lucky to land second place this time around, but that's because I expect PS3 to come with a monsterous price tag... maybe too monsterous.

Oh, and in retrospect, Microsoft signed Rare out from under Nintendo, but Rare floundered on Xbox at best. Does anyone else think the Big N was laughing at the stink bomb they sold to Microsoft? Though, I think the deal will be decided by Perfect Dark on 360.

nick64

05-27-2005, 03:51 AM

Rare deal: the Rare staff was furious when Nintendo signed over to Mmicrosoft. So furious in fact that almost half the staff left and formed a new team, called 'Free Radical' which are notable for their Timesplitters games, all three are better than any of the Rare games that came out after N64 era.

Price is a matter but i don't think 'technology whores' midn the price, people still bought X-box when it was expensive at launch compared with GC's cheaper prce tag. Of course, this coupled with the fact that Nintendo is making money per console they sell (unlike Sony and Microsoft) makes Nintendo still a major player in the gaming market.

DB27

05-27-2005, 06:00 AM

I don't see the difference between, say, $300 and $400 (or even more) being very likely to change buying habits like the difference between $100 and $200 would, for example. Economics would indiate that there is a price point where people's attitude becomes "if I'm going to spend that much, I'll just get the best (which often gets interpreted as most expensive)". You have to remember that Sony and Microsoft, and Nintendo to a lesser extent, have realized that they can make more money selling to the 20-somethings with no kids and lots of disposable income than they can to the little kids who have to ask their parents for moeny to buy games or consoles. I've seen it in the stores, where older folks will just walk in, see a new game, pick it up and buy it, where kids sit there asking their parents who repond "maybe next month for your birthday".

I think Nintendo is going to have to make a tough call with the Revolution: price their console close to the others, and maybe make a little profit or take only a little loss on each one sold, or undercut the others buy at least $100 to stay at the $200 price range and lose a lot of money per console. I don't see how they are going to be able to make money on the Revolution console itself if they price it at $200 or less, given the current component prices, even with wholesale deals.

nick64

05-28-2005, 08:13 AM

Though your theory is one part correct, the other theory is that not all 20-somethings have alot of money to spend but still want a next gen console to make them happy.
The difference in price is great and plays to Nintendo's advantage, not all people would pay an expensive amount a console.
However, some people prefer the 'pay for quality' approach, which also works abeit a risky approach imo.

REV could or could not be losing money if they sell their console cheaply, but from past experiences with DS, GBA, N64 and GC, Nintendo has gained profit from each console they made. We just have to wait and see.

DB27

05-28-2005, 08:51 AM

Knowing what I know about memory and component prices today, a $200 price will not make Nintendo money for at least a year. They were able to do better with previous consoles because they produced more of the components internally, but it is already known that a number of other companies have been involved in producing the components of the Revolution, and companies nowadays are NOT doing contract design work anymore, they all operate on a royalty basis. I'd be shocked to hear that Nintendo owns the sole rights to the various chips and component devices like they have in the past (I think only the GPU in the Gamecube was a licensed product, and I'm not even sure that is the case).

Nonetheless, I bet they will have a lower production cost than Sony and Microsoft, since they've always been good at getting the most bang for their production buck (one of their key strong points, in my opinion).

Strey

05-28-2005, 09:16 AM

Nintendo had some really good games so I wasn't dissapointed at all. Mario kart ds was great(won a few trinkets). Lost in blue showed infinite promise(though I wonder if later on they'll let you build a box to store items or something). Castlevania was on par with its earlier gba counterparts. Mario DDR was interesting enough(classic nintendo themes aren't the best for DDR, doesn't have the same feel). Fire Emblem was good(the demo was actually pretty long). Twilight princess looked great, even though the combat is like an exact clone of windwaker(there's even that stutter between attacks still).
All in all, I really don't think there's much to complain about, aside from not getting to see any games for the revolution.

Cleric

05-28-2005, 02:47 PM

The best thing Nintendo could have done was dump Rare. They were around 1.2% of money generated by software when Nintendo decided to let them go. Rare was a huge name for the years of Donkey Kong Country, Killer Instinct, Golden Eye, and Perfect Dark. However, after Perfect Dark they really didn't do anything major, cept Conker (a great game, but did ok in the market). Now Microsoft has em and all they have really done is...remake Conker. No Killer Instinct 3 and Perfect Dark 0 is taking forever to release.

Overall Nintendo has been about innovation. Which is the best thing you can do in a interactive entertainment industry. I mean, I love playing the Metal Gears, Street Fighters and Devil May Crys, but it's the same game with a little bit of gameplay changes isn't really innovative.

The only real problem with this innovation stand is Nintendo is the only one that really participates. Mario Paint, Mario Party, ElectoPlankton, Pikmin, and such are all first party. So it will be interesting (to me at least) to see if the other game companies can take a risk and create something entirely new. Hopefully the low cost of develpment on the Revolution will allow them to take those kinds of risks.

Skye McCloud

05-29-2005, 05:30 PM

Ever since the release of the PS1, Nintendo has had difficulty getting 3rd party support. This is mainly due to poor choices made with the company that is considered to have made the PS1 such a big success: Square. They could've stopped that altogether. The problem was a mix of Nintendo's decision to go cartridge again, and the SMRPG game (I won't get into that). The PS2 merely played off the success of the PS1. However, I don't think the PS3 will be able to do the same as much.

To whoever suggested Nintendo should've shown something, even if tech demos, from Rev games, consider that anything they show could potentially show off what makes the system what it is. This could then lead to copying anyway. The lack of any information on any front simply means they are doing everything they can to prevent Sony and MS from even possibly copying.

Another thing, in regards to the PS3 and X-Box 360, the development costs of these systems are going to cause one massive problem: Companies will have to put in so much money, they won't risk taking new paths. They'll keep going with what "works". This can easily lead to a crash in the market, as people will get sick of the same gameplay over and over. This is why Nintendo is making Rev, and keeping the development costs low. They WANT 3rd party companies to look at Rev and go "Ok, we can make games cheaper on this. It also uses something completely new to gaming. This opens new paths. Let's see where it goes." It's true that Nintendo will probably make most of the games for their own system, but I can already tell that the Rev will have a LOT more 3rd party support than it did for the Cube.

In other words, Nintendo is trying to prevent a crash before it happens. And even if it does happen, they will be there to revitalize the industry. They did it once, they'll do it again if needed.

Skye McCloud

05-29-2005, 07:00 PM

Ok, after reading that post, I felt the need to dissect and reply to it in parts.

2. They made poor business decisions to stick with cartridges, and then with GC to go Mini-dvd.

While it was a bad decision to stay in cartridge for the N64 like they did, they were right: CD's were not the future of gaming. Now, the mini-disc thing they used for GCN was NOT a bad business decision, as it has caused a lot of problems for emulation. This is good, since then people have to buy the games to play. They can't rip Nintendo off. Therefore, it was NOT a bad business decision. You should also know that the Revolution will work on DVD discs, although it won't be able to play DVD movies out of the box (Nintendo has always felt that gaming consoles should be just for gaming. They focus on what gaming is about: the games). You'll be able to buy an add-on if you want to play DVD movies, but thanks to Nintendo not including this, the cost for their system will be much lower (They're not forcing us to pay extra for functions we may never use, like Sony and Microsoft have been).

3. They have less third party support with the Gamecube, and N64, as to the Nes and Snes. 4. They lost Square becuase of their poor choices (Now they have Square again).

See my last post for my comments on this.

5. They cater mostly to kids, and diehard Nintendo fans.

Correction. They don't cater to ANYONE. They actually make games that can be played and enjoyed by all ages. They also take to heart the ESRB ratings, having it that their games which should be enjoyed by all ages are rated as such. You can't say an M rated game is designed to be played by all ages. Of course, because of this fact, they've had to take out things to prevent the rating from going up. This is where the so called "cater to kids" as you put it, or "kiddy image" as others have, comes from. It is entirely a false statement, though. It is simply being narrowminded to say a game like Pikmin, which is given the cute graphics on purpose so that it holds an E rating, is for kids. It's not. I own Pikmin 2, and over half of that game was damn hard.

6. They care too much about miniteurizing their handhelds, and consoles (Smaller? Whats the point of this?).

Think about cellphones, and MP3 players, and CD players. Why are they made small? Portability. The smaller something is, the easier it is to stick it in your pocket. This is why they try to keep trying to make handhelds small. As for making smaller consoles, same thing. It's a lot easier for me to carry my Cube around than it is to carry my PS2.

7. They seem to care more about their handhelds, than their consoles (Giving their handhelds more third and first party support).

I'll be covering this in two parts. First on the first party support, than the third party support.

Of course they support the handhelds more. The handhelds are what is currently owning the industry. And now with the PSP, they need to do what they can to take down any competition. That's the idea of the market, to take out your competitors. However, they do still give a lot of support to their consoles. They just pour a bit more into handhelds, since they currently have TWO running handhelds out on the market right now compared to one console, which is nearing the end of its lifespan.

As for third party, to say that Nintendo gives their handhelds more third party support, as you put it, is just being plain stupid. It's not Nintendo who decides that, but the 3rd party companies who make games. Geez... Nintendo gets more third party support on their handhelds because they own the handheld industry, and even with the PSP they're still owning. 3rd party companies are gonna make their games on something where it'll sell. PS2 currently reigns in the consoles, but Nintendo owns the handheld. Therefore, PS2 gets more 3rd party support in consoles, but Nintendo gets more 3rd party support in handhelds.

8. They claim innovation, yet all they they do is rehash games (Mario Golf, Mario Baseball, Anyone?...I'm not saying they aren't fun, im just saying how is this innovation?...i know about pikmin and the other ones, but...you get my point?) I could list other things, i'll wait and see what responses I get first...

I only see two Mario Golf games, one Mario Baseball, etc etc. All they are doing is making sports games while using the Mario franchise to create an unrealistic, and therefore very open sports world. The Mario sport games all have twists in them, and gameplay that's not in regular sports games and never will be. This isn't rehashing games, but rehashing characters. There's a difference. As it stands, Mario is the biggest figure in gaming. Of course they're going to pull on it, because they know people will RECOGNIZE Mario and think "Ooo, a Mario sports game. Let's try it." Get the idea?

Their statements for "innovation" actually began shortly before they showed the DS. The DS is where they are showing innovation, and soon it'll be the same for Revolution.

Oh, and if you're going to mention the Mario Party games... They don't reuse mini-games, and they always try add new stuff (Like the microphone for Mario Party 6).

nick64

05-30-2005, 02:07 AM

1. They used to be good back in the Snes and Nes days.
2. They made poor business decisions to stick with cartridges, and then with GC to go Mini-dvd.
3. They have less third party support with the Gamecube, and N64, as to the Nes and Snes.
4. They lost Square becuase of their poor choices (Now they have Square again).
5. They cater mostly to kids, and diehard Nintendo fans.
6. They care too much about miniteurizing their handhelds, and consoles (Smaller? Whats the point of this?).
7. They seem to care more about their handhelds, than their consoles (Giving their handhelds more third and first party support).
8. They claim innovation, yet all they they do is rehash games (Mario Golf, Mario Baseball, Anyone?...I'm not saying they aren't fun, im just saying how is this innovation?...i know about pikmin and the other ones, but...you get my point?)

Btw, Yes...I was dissapointed in Nintendo's E3 showing, all they showed was DS or was it GBA micro? (oh wow, lol), and a couple of DS games i dont care about (Don't own a DS or any handheld system, getting a PSP one day tho.), Then they showed Gamecube games very few looked interesting to me (Zelda was maybe the only one.) They showed a protoype Revolution, and claimed it was gonna be even smaller than what they held up..What? How much smaller can it get?? Anyways, I'll wait and see what people have to say about my post...

1. True, and they were good during N64 days as well, games like Super Mario 64, Zelda: OoT etc don't come round often you know

2. Semi-true, Carts = expensive. Mini-DVDs = great idea. Great for combatting piracy, loads time on CD is shortened and it was less expensive than carts. I don't see it as a problem

3. True, mainly due to development cost on PS1/2 was cheaper

4. Not a bad choice but due to a disagreement between the two (if i remember correctly)

5. Kiddy argument?!... <_< not gonna respond to that stupid reason

6. .. thats a bad point because...? Personally i have a Gamecube over an X-box based on looks, the size of an X-box makes it less appealing of a console than the compact size of the GC. As Skye said, on handhelds its for portability usage.

7.As for handhelds, Nintendo is dominating that market, wouldn't it be wise to concentrate resources on that area?

8. Its called 'milking the franchise', ALL popular franchises do it in some way or another. Nitnendo doesn't need to be innovative all the time, things like that take s alot of time and resources to think of, you almost expect Nintendo to think of innovatative things from the spot.
Anyways, if you found it fun, then the game succeeded, a game is supposed to be fun!

E3 showing: Ds and GBA Micro, why shouldn't they show it? Unlike Sony, Nintendo made an effort displaying DS stuff.
GC games, true Zelda was possibly the only game in GC section that was worthwhile, but if it succeeded in beating all other games in E3, kudos to Nintendo.
REV, you really have a problem with size don't you? ;)

Skye McCloud

05-30-2005, 11:42 AM

Here's something from www.the-magicbox.com

- Famitsu Weekly has conducted a next generation reader survey, to see which console system the readers are most interested.

Most Interested Next Generation Console
1. Nintendo Revolution - 42.2%
2. Sony PlayStation 3 - 39.8%
3. Microsoft Xbox 360 - 18.0%

Why do you like Revolution?
- Compact design, typical Nintendo style
- Able to download Famicom (NES), SFC (SNES) and Nintendo 64 games
- Possible innovative / new designs in Revolution
- Confidence in the hardware

Why do you like PlayStation 3?
- Outstanding technical specifications, standout against other next generation consoles
- Downward compatibility with PSone and PlayStation 2
- Cell processor and Bluray support are unique to the console
- Like the design of the console (but the controller design is crazy)

Why do you like Xbox 360?
- Developer support is splendid, especial people like Akira Toriyama and Sakaguchi.
- Square Enix supports the console
- Positive console design, color, technical specs and software lineup
- Console can stand vertically

As it stands, the lack of information hasn't changed the public's opinion. If anything, it's only increased interest. Of course, these numbers can change, but if these are the numbers when we have no info real info on Rev, what will they be like when we do have that info?

Starwolf

05-30-2005, 01:08 PM

If anything, it's only increased interest
I think this is an important point.

If you give them lots of info you'll see:
-Positive comments
-Negative comments

But if you don't give people the full picture but some ideas you get:
-Positive comments
-Negative comments
AND, speculation.

Speculation is good as it:
-Gets people to talk about stuff
-Hypes them up (through their imagination)

As for E3, initally I was disapointed but then I realised why Nintendo didn't say much.

Skye McCloud

05-30-2005, 01:49 PM

Speculation is good as it:
-Gets people to talk about stuff
-Hypes them up (through their imagination)

However, like many things, speculation can also be a bad thing. If it hypes people up through their imagination, what happens if the real thing can't live up to what we imagine? Well, people give that company crap, saying it's their fault, meanwhile we were the ones to imagine all that stuff.

So it all depends on if they can throw us something that can beat imagination, haha.

DB27

05-31-2005, 03:18 AM

3. True, mainly due to development cost on PS1/2 was cheaper

Development costs on the PS1/2 were than any console at the time of their launch. They were/are notoriously hard to develop for.

Nintendo says that the Revolution will be easier to code, but since they haven't even released developer kits (according to their spokesman at E3), we don't know how much of a difference it will be. Also, if they are easier but very different than current development models, it will still be an investment by company [x] to start development work for the console. I think this "cost of development" thing is being over-emphasized. It helps, yes, but if they can't get better penetration with the Revolution than they do with the GC, developers will still skew toward Sony and Microsoft. If they manage to sell a lot of consoles the first year, then developers will become more interested and Nintendo will have the makings of a great system on their hands.

DB27

05-31-2005, 03:33 AM

Of course, these numbers can change, but if these are the numbers when we have no info real info on Rev, what will they be like when we do have that info?

Some people will be dissappointed, some will criticize, some will declare it's the second coming, the rapture, the proof that god exists, and in the end no one will change their opinion.

The problem is, Famitsu surveys are nice and all, but it is primarily read by gamers, not the general public. Nintendo has a stronger following among hard-core gamers, and a greater proportion of gamers are interested in Nintendo for a variety of reasons (Nintendo fan base, historical brand loyalty, underdog vs. Sony and Microsoft, etc.) To make the analogy again, it's like the Apple vs. Microsoft situation. You hear an awful lot about the Mac. Heck, every third article you read in computer magazines seems to be someone touting the "better system", and how it can do many things better than Windows, yet it sits there with it's 6 or 7% market share and barely makes any headway. That's a more extreme version than the Nintendo situation, but an example of why surveys in trade magazines or gaming publications don't mean much: they sample a small and skewed portion of the population.

[oops, sorry about the double post]

Skye McCloud

05-31-2005, 08:57 AM

I just found out that EA Games ran a poll as well - http://www.eagames.com/redesign/home.jsp

Based on what you know, which Next Gen Console will you buy?

Nintendo Revolution
50%

Sony PlayStation 3
30%

Microsoft Xbox 360
19%

Total votes: 50202

It may be a small number in comparison to the size of the people who buy games, but remember that core gamers play a big factor in influencing casuals. Usually, core gamers are the ones working in video game stores, or are friends with people who run said stores. This lets them have an impact by word of mouth.

The Cube didn't have anywhere NEAR these percentages for interest. These small numbers could be more important than we may think.

DB27

05-31-2005, 12:30 PM

Actually, it is an unfortunate fact that most of the people who work at gaming stores such as EB and certainly the people who work at Wal-mart and Target are NOT core gamers. Just look at all the posts on GameFAQs about people at these stores who don't know anything about games other than GTA and Halo....

nick64

05-31-2005, 12:57 PM

Development costs on the PS1/2 were than any console at the time of their launch. They were/are notoriously hard to develop for.

Nintendo says that the Revolution will be easier to code, but since they haven't even released developer kits (according to their spokesman at E3), we don't know how much of a difference it will be. Also, if they are easier but very different than current development models, it will still be an investment by company [x] to start development work for the console. I think this "cost of development" thing is being over-emphasized. It helps, yes, but if they can't get better penetration with the Revolution than they do with the GC, developers will still skew toward Sony and Microsoft. If they manage to sell a lot of consoles the first year, then developers will become more interested and Nintendo will have the makings of a great system on their hands.

I was kinda referring to the RAW material cost of a cartridge vs a CD but you do have a point.

Things are still 'hush-hush' but if certain companies are interested (Square-Enix, Bandai [possibly Namco]) then it could gain ground. Add to that, tremendous quality of Nintendo products then you got something good in your hands. Development cost is an issue for some companies with many of them not gaining a 'profit' as such, so REV can be beneficial for them.
Of course, this is all down to whether Sony's console market leadership will die down, considering the success with PS1 and 2
if current polls suggest that the gaming public is interested in REV then it really can't 'fail' can it?

But as you said, the general public are more interested in the Playstation brand and the Western audience like their 'mature' games like GTA, Halo and Tony Hawks, any console with that combination of sort would do well. Vice versa with Eastern audience who like Rpgs and Sim games mor.

DB27

05-31-2005, 04:44 PM

Exactly. That was the "secret" to the PSX/2 success: they catered to both groups with Sims/RPGs as well as "mature" games. Let's hope that Nintendo can do a better job of that this time around, because if they do they can really win big. In all honesty, I'm sure that by the end of 2006 I'll own all three (and maybe a JP PS3 as well!).

hairy

06-03-2005, 02:22 PM

Hmm well first things first .. i havent followed the gaming scene for a longgg time, and i havent really read any of the posts here in this thread either :P but personally i was dissapointed in Nintendo's E3 showing .. Sony and Microsoft kinda busted out some damn impressive footage and stuff about their next gen system, but Nintendo kinda laid back on the Revolution showing ... they've kinda been going on this whole "quiet, secrecy" thing for a while and i mean ... it works really well for the fanbase they already have (such as myself :P) but its not going to help in their attempts to get new fans.

Alot of ppl want the whole "WOW!" factor ... and to get that, you're gonna have to bust out alot of visuals and amazing stuff ... like tech demos and footage and what not ... Nintendo didn't have much of that for the revolution at E3 :\ I really wanted to see what the Revolution had to offer ... but i guess I'll have to wait til Spaceworld for that .. but its all good.

Besides that, i did watch the Nintendo E3 conference .. it didn't really do much for me ... probably because im not that interested in the DS and the conference highlighted the DS for most of the show, excluding footage of some upcoming gamecube games ... unfortunately, i wasnt really interested in them because im mostly looking forward to Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess and possibly Fire Emblem .. the footage for LoZ:TP was awesome tho :D

Other than that ... the tidbits on the Revolution were nice, but it would've been better if they showed some footage, aside from that little 10 sec Metroid 3 footage which didnt show any ingame scenes whatsoever ... Smash Bros Revolution is gonna be awesome tho, with it being a launch game and it having online capabilities :D Although their E3 show did build some hype, the hype doesnt match up with the hype that Sony and Microsoft did with their next-gen system ... unfortunately, if Nintendo keeps on the low and laid back side, keeping secret, that hype is going to get lost ... hopefully theyll show some footage or release some more information in the mean time ... but personally, i think Sony and Microsoft really took E3 over, with Sony taking the crown ... well, thats my 2 cents :)

Skye McCloud

06-04-2005, 06:37 PM

You realize that none of the footage for PS3 was realtime, aka gameplay, right? Yes, there is one game people claim was realtime, but did they show anybody playing it? No, all we saw was a video. We can only believe Sony's word, which is one I don't trust. The very things you think should be shown is what made the PS1 and PS2 a peice of garbage IMO. They would go on about all this great graphic power, and would show us tech demos and CG video. However, it's the realtime that counts! The gameplay graphics! You don't spend the entire game watching CGs, do you? No. So why are they using CGs as the big thing to show us? It's bullshit.

In my area, there are two EB stores, and a third gaming store owned privately. All of them are run by core gamers. Hell, I tried to get a job at all of them. They all turned me down for not having a greater range of game knowledge (I'm big on Cube and GBA, know quite a bit on PS2, and very little on X-Box). Target and Walmart just suck, but the game exclusive stores are usually run by core gamers.

Ragnax

06-05-2005, 03:41 AM

You realize that none of the footage for PS3 was realtime, aka gameplay, right? Yes, there is one game people claim was realtime, but did they show anybody playing it? No, all we saw was a video.
If you're talking about Killzone 2; that was CG, not realtime like the Sony representatives at E3 claimed. One of Killzone 2's developers already said it was an approximation of what the ingame graphics could end up looking like with the PS3's specifications...
In other words; "The PS3 can do Toy Story 2 in real time."

FYI hairy, Microsoft's presentation was a load of bullshit as well, as everything was being rendered by two Apple G5's and not the XBox360 itself.

Actually, the only company that didn't let me down at E3 was Nintendo, considering they were the only company that gave its consumers a straight answer as to what they could expect to see soon, instead of outright lying to them (Sony), or deceiving them (MS & Sony).

Skye McCloud

06-06-2005, 09:37 AM

That's the game. Yea, it's ridiculous that they did that. A friend of mine bought into it, and still does, haha.

The Microsoft presentation was rendered by two Apple G5's? Interesting. I must go laugh at someone, haha.

nick64

06-06-2005, 09:53 AM

Sony PS3 videos are 'fake', it looked the most impressive video but as Ragnax said, its what they think could be done using the power of the machine.
Microsoft had 2 Apple G5s (ironic isn't it?) running their demos and the even then the demos didn't look too impressive compared with the current X-box titles.
Nintendo didn't show anything but left lots of hype, some may be dissapointed by this. Overhyperness can do damage to a company and its fanbase.

Skye McCloud

06-07-2005, 12:23 AM

At this time, I believe somewhere from 3 to 10% of people in North America have an HDTV. Of course, with the legislation that the US Congress is trying to pass (To force all TV stations to be HD only), HDTV prices will drop... around the time we're looking into the next next gen consoles.

I have an HDTV, but I could care less. I don't really get to use it much.

The idea of making games HD is nice. I'm not gonna pay $80+ (Speaking in terms of canadian dollars) to buy a game, though. I'll stick with Nintendo and the Revolution and play the classics only.

What really sickens me is how people watched those tech demos, and assumed it was the actual graphics. This is exactly what Sony did in the past! PS1, they showed CG graphics and such in commercials, but the realtime looked like garbage in comparison (FF7, FF8, FF9, anyone?). They did the same thing for PS2 as well. They're doing it AGAIN for PS3! WON'T THESE PEOPLE LEARN?! SONY IS A BUNCH OF F*CKING LIARS!

... Sorry, I had to get that out.

ChaosDelirium

06-07-2005, 09:53 PM

What really sickens me is how people watched those tech demos, and assumed it was the actual graphics. This is exactly what Sony did in the past! PS1, they showed CG graphics and such in commercials, but the realtime looked like garbage in comparison (FF7, FF8, FF9, anyone?). They did the same thing for PS2 as well. They're doing it AGAIN for PS3! WON'T THESE PEOPLE LEARN?! SONY IS A BUNCH OF F*CKING LIARS!

... Sorry, I had to get that out.

I like and agree with your comment, Skye. But to tell you the truth, it is actually NOT Sony's fault or more so: Sony is not lying. Beware, I am not supporting Sony in any way (well, while trying to make this point I probably am, but the ending will be nice). All they did was show off some nice FMVs and say (not exatly their words): "This is what you can pull off with PS3 hardware. Marvel yourself with that". It is true that so many poor ignorant sheeps are tricked into believing that what they are watching are in game graphics.

However, look at it like this: Sony represents Marlboro and the poor sheeps represent the people who smoke. Sony would just show a video and the rest would assume that what they saw were good gfx. Same as with the smoking ads: a lovely couple walking down the beach, looking at the sunset, enjoying a picnic near the shore, and finally lighting their cigs. Anybody (STUPID!!) who would see that would believe that smoking will bring them eternal happiness. I like to call it: the "Sony only needs to step into the smoking market to dominate the world with a dark iron fist" metafor. :D

PS: Has anybody noticed that when threads are long in any forum, it is because 1) there are people (specifically when someone has biased mentality) who are argueing their different points of view or 2) it branches off onto something completely different to what the creator of the thread intended or 3) there are users who don't read from post#1 and repeat what somebody else previously said?

Skye McCloud

06-08-2005, 12:47 AM

I've noticed all three of those things, Chaos. Haha.

Anyway, in a sense, they did lie. I remember them showing a CG for PS2, and they said something along the lines of "You'll play games with these types of graphics". Keyword: Play. We didn't play games with CG quality graphics, and they said we would.

Now, with the PS3, they went and even rendered something from Killzone 2, made it look realtime, and apparantly claimed it was realtime. THAT is lieing, and false advertising. They're trying to make people think the PS3 is capable of even greater graphics for realtime, when it's nothing but CG. We're just getting a constant loop from Sony, are we not?

This is what I like about Nintendo. They are going out their and giving false advertising, or making lies, or any such crap. They're giving us the truth (As much as people will try to deny this) on what they do. They're secretive, but they have yet to outright lie to us as Sony has.

"PS3 is 35 times more powerful than PS2."

I can already bet that that is comparing the worst graphics on PS2 to the best graphics on PS3, and even then they inflated the number a bit to make it seem better. In reality, it'll probably be from 5 to 10 times more powerful. 35 times my ass. This is another example of lying.

Nintendo, however, didn't lie. I'm not sure if this is true (It probably isn't), but I heard that they said Revolution is 2 to 3 times more powerful than Cube. While that seems much more realistic than 35 times more powerful, I'm quite sure Revolution will be more powerful than that (And the 2 to 3 times thing was spread by some newspaper. No Nintendo exec has been actually quoted on saying that.

<b>Edit</b>

This just in! Nintendo has leaked some more Revolution info to IGN.

http://cube.ign.com/articles/622/622870p1.html

ChaosDelirium

06-13-2005, 08:48 PM

Yes, it may seem Sony is a big fat liar nowadays. But in the past, they were an innocent angelic victim to the evil (that once was) Nintendo. You may feel sorry for them in the past, but they've gone too far today by lieing to everybody and thickening their wallet.

This (http://www.zeldalegends.net/index.php?n=cdi_history) is the place for the history. Check the 1991 paragraph if you don't want to read the rest, but it'll be more interesting if you do.

Para

06-13-2005, 08:57 PM

Hi Skye McCloud

I recognize you from gamingforce.com
I'm Nites on there.

Anyways I was somewhat impressed by Nintendo's showing with the exception of Gameboy Micro which I found disappointing. I was hoping to see something of more WOW in terms of power and graphics to bring more variety to the gaming library.

Ragnax

06-14-2005, 04:35 AM

But in the past, they were an innocent angelic victim to the evil (that once was) Nintendo.Heh. The site you are linking to forgets to mention a small item;

Sony was infact backstabbing Nintendo, before Nintendo returned the favor.

Sony wanted to get their grubby corporate hands on Nintendo's games' licensing and thus bust Nintendo down to their game-producing slave company. At that point Nintendo very wisely cut their losses and went to Philips instead.

ChaosDelirium

06-14-2005, 06:57 PM

Sony wanted to get their grubby corporate hands on Nintendo's games' licensing and thus bust Nintendo down to their game-producing slave company. At that point Nintendo very wisely cut their losses and went to Philips instead.

You know? I never thought about that. Now that i think about it: Sony has always tried to "almost" monopolize every area in business they get into!! The last one I believe is the movie industry: They've already bought Paramount, Columbia, Tristar and MGM.

Thinking this more deeply: SONY SHOULD DIE!!! But i still like the games that come out for PS2, unfortunately. I'll just wait for a PCSX2 to stabilize to start recovering lost games (years I must wait, indeed; but patience I also possess).

7amood

06-14-2005, 07:07 PM

I'm not interested in anything but Sony's PS3
Hido Kojima the genius of the games world was shocked when he heard what can PS3 do and what it contains :p

BTW...
anyone is waiting for "F.E.A.R : First Encounter Assault Recon"??
this game will be out after 2 monthes and will do lots of scaring

Fuunky

06-20-2005, 02:47 PM

Yeah Nintendo has suck the E3 what's their problem with the gameboy micro and the revolution if you don't have anything to show, don't show anything.
The console who is the more attractive for me it's the DS because the console is not very powerful so the editor will be oblige to found new concept to improve their game.
I hope it will be.

Skye McCloud

06-20-2005, 11:36 PM

Nites? Ahh yes, I recognize that name. :) Nice to know I'm not the only GFFer here.

7amood, if you're "not interested in anything but Sony's PS3", why are you posting in a topic regarding Revolution?

Fuunky, I'll be honest, I couldn't make much sense of your post. Sorry.

I had heard of that stuff regarding Sony/Nintendo, and in all honesty I'm with Nintendo on it. Sorry, but Sony is trying to be like a bigger Microsoft (Who is trying to take over the computer world, whereas Sony is trying to take over every market of entertainment).

I'm surprised at how many people don't seem to understand Nintendo's P.O.V. in regards to releasing Revolution info, though.

nick64

06-21-2005, 01:14 AM

Despite Nintendo not showing any videos of the REV stuff etc, did Nintendo really need to? They're keeping their project very secretive.

thoguh i agree with the GB Micro comment, the REV one is a different matter, i say 'wait and see', somethign suprisingly good could come up.

A comic strip which expresses my thoughts really well is on the last page of 'Edge' Magazine..

Fuunky

06-21-2005, 04:57 PM

I just say that the nintendo show sucks because they didn't show anything new except the game boy micro(what's the interest ??)
Revolution: it remind me the phantom(a little bit)
Ds: the only glimmer of hope with zelda(but it's not really new)

Skye McCloud

06-23-2005, 01:58 AM

In all honesty, I think the Game Boy Micro is cool, simply because it is what a handheld gaming device should be: Very portable.

A lot of people seem to go "Bah, so what? It's just smaller." Well, let's start back in the GB days. You had the Brick. That thing was big, and not that portable, and it used four batteries too. After several years, we get Gameboy pocket. Less batteries used, smaller and easier to carry. Then game GB Color. It was bigger than Pocket, so they made a GB Color Pocket for portablility. NEXT comes GBA, which is about as big as the GB Color. A little ways down the road, we get GBA SP, which is smaller, more portable, and even has its own built-in battery. Now, we're getting Micro, which is even smaller.

Just as people like smaller cell phones so they're easier to carry, the Micro will be wanted by those who want a smaller handheld which is easier to carry.

There is no point beyond that, though.

Ragnax

06-23-2005, 03:50 AM

I just say that the nintendo show sucks because they didn't show anything new except the game boy micro(what's the interest ??)And all Microsoft and Sony showed you were prerendered movies or footage not even running off of the actual console. In effect they didn't show ANYTHING working, while Nintendo still had the Micro and was demoing a lot of new DS games and Twilight Princess.
What Microsoft and Sony seem to forget is that E3 stands for Electronic Entertainment Expo; aka showing what kinds of entertainment you're working on, and not for a contest in penis size.

Just as people like smaller cell phones so they're easier to carry, the Micro will be wanted by those who want a smaller handheld which is easier to carry.

There is no point beyond that, though.Not entirely true; There are a few more points to it. The Micro's screen, though a tad smaller than the GBA(SP)'s screen, gives a lot sharper image and is true backlit, just like the DS. The Micro's design itself is not only compact, but it's also quite nicely styled, meaning it's more appealing to 'image-weary' people.

Fuunky

06-23-2005, 03:48 PM

Ok, i understand your point of view, but what i'm trying to say is many people waited to see the new console of nintendo. Zelda(my favorite serie) and the DS are not new things.
The E3 is a gigantic show of communication and from this point of view I think that the conference of nintendo was not on the level of that of Sony and Microsoft.
That's all.

Skye McCloud

06-24-2005, 11:45 AM

Ragnax's point falls true as well, though, Fuunky. Sony and Microsoft didn't show us what their system can do. They showed prerendered videos that were made and ran by Apple G5s (Yea, both of them did this).

As well, again, Ragnax stated that E3 is meant to showcase electronic entertainment and what you're working on. That is what is always has been. Sony and Microsoft are only interested in one-upping each other, ala Ragnax's "contest of penis size".

servbot

06-24-2005, 06:58 PM

Nintendo always shows their stuff as last minute as possible, remember how many names the Ultra....i mean Nintendo 64 went through? First it was called Project Reality.

I think the DS showings are really great and will hopefully pickup momemtum for the system. WHERE IS MY DS METROID??

Nintendo likes to save their stuff for Space World anyway...

otosa

07-05-2005, 05:34 PM

gooniefly

07-05-2005, 05:51 PM

who is defending nintendo in here, we all are stating what we saw in the E3 and really Nintendo was strong in this year's convention, and you don't need a powerful system like the PS3 or the meaningless XBox 360 to impress people, you need to show them something new like the capability of downloading games to your console from the internet, internet play, and a reasonable price for low resource players. Come on! who doesn't want to play old games again in a new console, that's a big deal.

And also the other new generation consoles are pretty good, and i'm not saying nintendo is the best of the E3, just they showed what they got and is a good thing, also as good as PS3 and Xbox 360, they all have advantages, good games, companies and many other things, but I think Nintendo still has something to be fighting with and its nothing that meaningless, its all about vision.

Well finally I can say that all three consoles are pretty good and my favorite is PS3 but why let nintendo back?

Ragnax

07-06-2005, 04:53 AM

so this is the defending nintendo thread or what, most people that talk about nintendo going to be nintendo this nintendo that, please just shut up, im sick of people defending something that it's wothles. for all those cry babies take the finger out of your mouth see the reality
Hello Sony fanboy, who is upset about people talking about Nintendo on a Nintendo console forum section. :rolleyes:

Take the finger out of your mouth and realize that Nintendo this generation is making as much profit on it's niche 10% of the market as Sony is on their share. If you call their businessplan worthless, then you are a grade A idiot.

Nobody is defending anything here. Any arguments against trolls such as yourself only serve to bring a little reality to your Sony-fanboy warped vision of the world. It is hardly unjustified defending of anything, unlike your fanboy friends who claim 'zOMG PS2 rul3s, y0u 5uc|<!!1!!one!!' as soon as someone tries to start an intelligent conversation on anything related to Nintendo.

Now please do us all a favor and GTFO.

Oh, and PS: Learn to spell and learn proper sentence structure.

Ragnax

07-08-2005, 05:30 AM

Okay. I'll bite.

How do you know, he is a Sony fanboy? He didn't say anything about Sony.I'm assuming he is a Sony fanboy (or atleast an anti-Nintendo fanboy), because there really is no other sane reason to go into a thread and tell everyone to shut up about Nintendo because it's worthless. Furthermore the 'So this the defending Nintendo thread, or what?' made it abundantly clear to me what his intentions were; Nintendo-bashing. Can you give me a more fitting ulterior motivation to post what he did, in the way he did? I'm open to suggestions.

As soon as you can show me proof this is true, I am going to guess you made this up, 10% market share, that's awfully low, don't ya think? Why does it matter how much profit, or how much Nintendo sells or whatnot (that doesn't have anything to do with why it has the least games, and why its percieved as a "Kids" console).
Read: http://www.buzzcut.com/article.php?story=2005053122342247
How much profit Nintendo has is exactly what matters. I can't help it that the entire media has the twisted idea that number of sales is what counts or that they think the kiddy image matters. In the end, profit is what matters. And Nintendo is laughing all the way to the bank. To call a company and its future worthless when it is in fact the only major one in that line of business that makes an annual profit is stupid.

Why do you insist on calling him a fanboy?, you gonna call me a fanboy (I dare ya too!) From what I see, you are defending Nintendo and taking your anger out on someone for having an opinion different than yours.You already asked why I'm calling him a fanboy, and I already explained back at the top of this post. I'm not taking my anger out on anyone. I'm just systematicly taking down each invalid point he made, in an equally harsh tone to his original one. I also have no reason to call you a fanboy, since you have shown nothing that would indicate it.

Why does he need to leave, he didn't do anything to you, he just stated his opinion be it fanboy or not fanboy, you should respect his opinion and not put him down for it, who cares if he trolled in here or whatnot, I sure as hell don't.Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but isn't the general idea of a thread on a messageboard to contribute to it, instead of ordering every previous contributor to shut up because he doesn't like the subject. That's why I told him to GTFO (of the thread). If he is allowed to state his opinion, then I am just as allowed to state my opinion of his opinion. Correct?

This just topped it all off, it shows you feel superior to him, and you had to put him down again, bravo!! "Now, who looks like a fool, huh?"
Just like you need to take my post apart piece by piece and try to bash me? And besides; When you post on a messageboard it's common curtousy to atleast try to write properly in that board's language.