The New Console Debates

[Mic_128]

Nintendo might have made the "saved game" for cartridges, but you really think no one else would have?

And they made the D-pad, not analog stick.

 

[Cashed]

You guys act like Nintendo cares more or something about you, when they all just want the money.

Quoted for the truth.

 

[Paranoid_Android]

i think Nintendo is a company full of crazy yet awesome guinesses.

(couldn't resist)


All the companies are after money. I don't see your point. Sony made a lot of innovations too... have any of them really changed the gameplay? They were the first to make CD and DVD and, in the future, Blu Ray disks popular, but did that change the way you played the game, or just how good the graphics could be? The only thing I can think of is the analog stick, but once again, that hit computers first.

 

[Aruun]

Actually, Nintendo really has brought alot to the gaming industry, most people just don't give them credit for it. They invented the D-Pad, were the first to use analog sticks on a console correctly, came up with rumble, shoulder buttons, wireless controllers, blahblah. I haven't even read up and don't know why you guys are talking about, but you at least have to give credit to Nintendo for coming up with some good ideas (or at least bringing good ideas from other devices to gaming).

They just do it for money, though, incase anyone though it was for a different reason or something.

 

[Chill]

It's not that everyone within any company only cares about money. It's just that overall money is a big factor in the decisions made.

If you want to give Nintendo credit for simply doing something better and not inventing it then give it to the companies too. Instead of saying "OMG they stole the that!!1" I know you haven't said anything like that JMY I'm speaking to other people.

 

[Bedi Vegeta]

Executives care about money. Administrators care about money.

If game designers and creators (that is, the actual creative people and the ones making the games) only cared about money, they would all be dentists or something, and live very comfortable lives. All games companies contain a limited amount of passion and actual care about the final products, and how much customers will enjoy them. This applies to Sony and Microsoft as well. It is all just a matter of how much the executives will let the creators care.

Like JMY said (and Chill), Nintendo has revolutionised the gaming industry quite a lot and set the benchmark many times, but I would be very disappointed if other games companies did not actually try to compete and rise to the occasion, raising their standards to the same as Nintendo, as Sony has done many times. It is what keeps the whole industry improving.

 

[zarbityugi]

Exactly. Everybody started out "catching up" to Nintendo, then (to some poor souls) seemed to surpass Nintendo. It's just a matter of time before Nintendo reigns supreme again. Hopefully this controller will do it. Any way you want to look at it, Nintendo has been in the gaming industry longer than Micro$oft and $ony. (Atari doesn't count) Nintendo simply has more experience.

 

[kaid]

If you're going to put M$ and $ony like that, make it nint-yen-do.

Executives care about money. Administrators care about money.

If game designers and creators (that is, the actual creative people and the ones making the games) only cared about money, they would all be dentists or something, and live very comfortable lives. All games companies contain a limited amount of passion and actual care about the final products, and how much customers will enjoy them. This applies to Sony and Microsoft as well. It is all just a matter of how much the executives will let the creators care.

Correctly if I'm wrong, but I believe that, out of the three console makers currently active, Nintendo currently is the only ones that have game designers "under the same roof" as it were. MS's Bungie and now Rare comes close, but let's face it. MS set a deadline for Halo 2, and Bungie had to rush it and give a game that, while decent, was nothing compared to the hype. The Administration of MS is calling the shots to the detriment of the game designers.

On the ther hand, look at Nintendo's LoZ: Twilight Princess. Fully as hyped as Halo 2, the game designers keep wanting to add more stuff. The Nintendo administration simply nods and eventually has Reggie tell the world the game wont be releaced until the end of time. This IS going to cost Nintendo money- if not on sales, simply on programmer wages alone! -but nintendo is doing it anyway, and when it comes out, (IF it ever comes out...) LoZ fans will be rewarded for their patience.

 

[Cashed]

On the ther hand, look at Nintendo's LoZ: Twilight Princess. Fully as hyped as Halo 2, the game designers keep wanting to add more stuff. The Nintendo administration simply nods and eventually has Reggie tell the world the game wont be releaced until the end of time..

I wouldn't say Twilight Princess is nearly as hyped as Halo 2 was. Microsoft hyped Halo 2 to hell, and when they found out Bungie wasn't near being done, they gave them a date to live by. It's actually a good thing they made the date too, as the hype was still following the game when it was released. So much of the Twilight Princess hype has died because the game is taking so effing long.

And to get back to next-gen consoles, I'd thought I'd let everyone know the PS3 has been officially delayed in Japan till Fall.

 

[zarbityugi]

Sony is really hurting. If the rev gets out before the ps3, they'll probably place 3rd in this round of the console wars. high prices, late deliveries, loss of 3rd-parties... everything's going wrong this time around.

 

[Flyingmonkey]

Not officially from Sony though. The article in 1up says that a Japanese newspaper said this. Though I highly doubt that Sony will still make a spring launch, I'm pretty sure that it's not technically official.

 

[Mic_128]

It's official.

 

[Crimson King]

Sony is really hurting. If the rev gets out before the ps3, they'll probably place 3rd in this round of the console wars. high prices, late deliveries, loss of 3rd-parties... everything's going wrong this time around.

So because they are delayed, PS3 will lose? If anything, the PS3 delay is bad for Nintendo. Now, all those purchases the day of release will go to Sony and Nintendo's customers will only be the few who just have one console. Also, a price hasn't been set yet, so don't go on rumors.

Go back the last Console War. X-Box was released 3 days prior to the Gamecube, it sold quite well and the people who bought both, could afford/didn't want to split the time for both, so Nintendo was left behind.

 

[Mic_128]

Ah, but this time the price diference is likely to be a bit more than the Cube-Xbox. It might be that those who can afford the PS3 might end up having enough for the rev (probably not though) or those who can't afford one could pick up a Rev. But since prices haven't ben mentioned by either (except for the less than $300 from Nin) this is pure speculation based on unreliable info.

 

[Crimson King]

But Mic, if I want a Jaguar, I won't settle for a Volvo because it's cheaper and I can afford it. I, like most people who aren't that impressionable, will save for the PS3. Now, Nintendo will have to actually sell the console instead of hoping people will pick up both.

 

[Zink]

Most people who will buy a PS3 are in the typical game-buying group-the late teens to late twenties age group. Some of them are probably college students or at entry-level jobs- not the type to have a spare $600, or the ability to save it away easily. The Rev is very appealing to parents because of the rating lock, low price, and the kid-friendly reputation of Nintendo, old fans will buy it just because it is Nintendo, new fans will be drawn in by new games and possibly even new genres... the list goes on. Do you really think that a) Nintendo just hoped people would buy a Rev tagging along with a PS3 and b) that they didn't know or at least guess the PS3 would be delayed? I bet they had 2 marketing plans ready for the 2 release dates of the PS3.

Everyone wants a Jag, but most people will settle for a Volvo- both of them get you places and one is affordable- they are mature enough to know some things are just too much money for too little benefit. Who wants to go 120 mph in 5 seconds or whatever on a highway, or driving home from work? And I may be taking the analogy a bit far here, but they can also rely on the increasing prevalence of the train and subway system.

 

[Chill]

The Rev isn't going to sell on low price alone. The gamecube was outsold by two more expensive consoles.

Do you really think that a) Nintendo just hoped people would buy a Rev tagging along with the PS3

Nintendo said it themselves.

 

[Mic_128]

But Mic, if I want a Jaguar, I won't settle for a Volvo because it's cheaper and I can afford it.

If I only have a Moped, I'd settle for the Volvo.

 

[Giygas]

But Mic, if I want a Jaguar, I won't settle for a Volvo because it's cheaper and I can afford it. I, like most people who aren't that impressionable, will save for the PS3.

That's like 18 contradictions, right there. You're not impressionable yet you're already saving money for the next mass-marketed piece of consumer electronics destined to better your life (but not your wallet) that is being produced by corporate giant Sony. And this is a system that you've seen little to no actual game play footage (besides CG) and no real price (with estimates ranging from $400 to $1,000).

See, I want a Jaguar, but I can't afford it. Does that mean I save and get it? No.

 

[Crimson King]

See, Giygas, you completely discredited yourself when you decided to make two claims. One being the $400 - $1000 price tag which hasn't ever been hinted at and when you claimed I was buying a PS3 for any reason other than having fun.

The market for PS3 is late teenagers to college level students. I am a full time student, part time working, and in month I could afford the PS3's ghost $600 tag. I make minimum wage and if I can afford a PS3 if I wanted to, many college students who make more than I do can as well.

That point is quite invalid.

You guys are missing the point, you are just assuming that because the Rev is cheap it will outsell all other consoles, but as Chill pointed out, it didn't.

Let's see some games then see who will actually be on top. Right now, I am going with 360, they have the best online plan and great games. Until I can be swayed that's where my money is going this Christmas.

 

[RaptorHawk]

The market for PS3 is late teenagers to college level students. I am a full time student, part time working, and in month I could afford the PS3's ghost $600 tag. I make minimum wage and if I can afford a PS3 if I wanted to, many college students who make more than I do can as well.

That point is quite invalid.

You guys are missing the point, you are just assuming that because the Rev is cheap it will outsell all other consoles, but as Chill pointed out, it didn't.

Let's see some games then see who will actually be on top. Right now, I am going with 360, they have the best online plan and great games. Until I can be swayed that's where my money is going this Christmas.

Just because you can afford to get one does not mean everyone will want to. Your average gamer might be willing to pay for the PS3 but your average person most likely will not. This is where/why the revolution will shine. It will attract your average gamer and everyone else.

Xbox had the best online plan this generation and they still weren't on top. And the 360 has a lot of good games. Nothing great yet. Even with the lack of information I think Revolution will be on top for games. Just look at the list of developers behind Nintendo this time. Everybody and their mother wants to make games for the Rev. And because of the Rev's controller all games will be exclusive to revolution since it would be basically stupid to attempt those games on the PS3 and 360. And exclusives help tremendously in hardware sales.

 

[Chill]

Just because you can afford to get one does not mean everyone will want to. Your average gamer might be willing to pay for the PS3 but your average person most likely will not. This is where/why the revolution will shine. It will attract your average gamer and everyone else.

But as said before the cheaper gamecube was outsold by two consoles with a higher price. Not one but two. People are willing to spend money on what they want. If the Rev doesn't have what they want they won't buy it.They won't say 'at least it's cheaper'.

Even with the lack of information I think Revolution will be on top for games. Just look at the list of developers behind Nintendo this time. Everybody and their mother wants to make games for the Rev. And because of the Rev's controller all games will be exclusive to revolution since it would be basically stupid to attempt those games on the PS3 and 360. And exclusives help tremendously in hardware sales.

On the same note look at the list of developers interested in the PS3 and 360. The Revs controller may be its weak point. If a developer can't spread a game across multiple consoles are the going to want to make it? That's something we'll have to wait to find out. And your right about exclusives helping hardware sales. But at this time I don't think the Rev has more exclusives than the other consoles.

 

[McFox]

On the same note look at the list of developers interested in the PS3 and 360. The Revs controller may be its weak point. If a developer can't spread a game across multiple consoles are the going to want to make it? That's something we'll have to wait to find out.

This is a moot point. They Revmote will have an attachment with a more "traditional" number of buttons and layout, similar to the Wavebird.

 

[Chill]

I knew someone was going to say that. I didn't mean the Rev couldn't have games that the 360 and PS3 have. I meant, will developers want to make a game for the Revolution that uses its controller and can't be moved to other systems later on?

Let's say a developer makes a game on the Revolution fully involving it's controller. If they want to introduce the game to other consoles they wouldn't be able to without reworking the game. Will they want to do that?

That's something we'll have to wait to find out.

 

[ChRed2AKrisp]

their have been at least 10 articles on big name developers who have produced great games expressing excitement and plans for games on the REv because they want to implement the controller and see many new possiblities available only on the Rev.

so I'd say yes.

 

[McFox]

I knew someone was going to say that. I didn't mean the Rev couldn't have games that the 360 and PS3 have. I meant, will developers want to make a game for the Revolution that uses its controller and can't be moved to other systems later on?

Let's say a developer makes a game on the Revolution fully involving it's controller. If they want to introduce the game to other consoles they wouldn't be able to without reworking the game. Will they want to do that?

Ah I see. I was reading that incorrectly.

You are right about this. Developers can make games for the PS3 and 360 and then port it to Rev, but they could not (really) make a Rev game and then port it to other consoles. They would have to be pretty confident that the game would sell well enough on Rev to make it worth their investment, since it's the only console that they could release it for.

In fact, we're already seeing this. The next-generation Sonic game (most poeple have seen the trailer) will be released for PS3 and 360. Sega is developing a separate Sonic game for the Rev, which will most likely be very different from the PS3 and 360 games.

And to people talking about delays, the first system released doesn't necessarily mean success. The Dreamcast released a year before the PS2, and we all know how that one worked out.

 

[RaptorHawk]

But as said before the cheaper gamecube was outsold by two consoles with a higher price. Not one but two.

There's one major difference between this gen and next gen with the pricing though. For the current gen all 3 systems were within $100 of each other. So it wasn't THAT big of a deal. But the price difference between Rev. and PS3 is HUGE. Big enough to make a difference.

On the same note look at the list of developers interested in the PS3 and 360. The Revs controller may be its weak point. If a developer can't spread a game across multiple consoles are the going to want to make it? That's something we'll have to wait to find out. And your right about exclusives helping hardware sales. But at this time I don't think the Rev has more exclusives than the other consoles.

I'd agree with you there if there weren't already 48493893 different companies that have already stated that they want to make games for the Rev. specifically because of the controller. This means all these games will be exclusives.

 

[Zink]

Also the consoles are a lot closer now in terms of power. Mumble numbers all you want, I still say 3 screenshots from the same game on these next consoles will be indistinguishable. Sure the Rev is cheaper, but people tend to overlook other points too. A console is sold by a multifaceted gem of attractive options. Price is one facet, but so is originality and conservativeness. And you can't underestimate marketing ideas as well as hype, whether it is lived up to or not. So don't say GCN was outsold because it was cheaper, or because it was the least expensive system- there are plenty of reasons and they cannot be taken individually.

 

[Cashed]

Also the consoles are a lot closer now in terms of power. Mumble numbers all you want, I still say 3 screenshots from the same game on these next consoles will be indistinguishable.

From what developers have said, I'd say there will be a difference. Whenever someone says something like this I can't help but think of the Rev being described as a "souped up Xbox" awhile back. Yeah, at first that doesn't like a bad statement, but it isn't even compared by the developer to the 360 or the PS3 in that statement. That makes me feel like there will be a difference.

All the games designed for the Rev wouldn't have to be exclusives, either. At first it didn't seem like you'd be able to make a controller do what a mouse and keyboard does, but look at games today. Little changes could likely be made to Rev games to port to other consoles to make them work.

 

[Crimson King]

There's one major difference between this gen and next gen with the pricing though. For the current gen all 3 systems were within $100 of each other. So it wasn't THAT big of a deal. But the price difference between Rev. and PS3 is HUGE. Big enough to make a difference.

Your proof? Sony never mentioned a price yet. Not even a range. Nintendo hasn't either. So there is no basis for this at all.

Also, just because companies SAY they will publically doesn't mean they will unless they sign contracts.

 

[RaptorHawk]

Your proof? Sony never mentioned a price yet. Not even a range. Nintendo hasn't either. So there is no basis for this at all.

Also, just because companies SAY they will publically doesn't mean they will unless they sign contracts.

Oh, cmon. Now your just trying to start an argument. Seriously, be realistic. We dont need official confirmation from Nintendo and Sony to know that Rev will be relitively cheap and PS3 will be reletively expensive.

When it comes to companies saying they'll make games. Again, be realistic. How often do companies withdraw their desire to make a game? And what are the chances that a good chunk of the companies will do so out of Nintendo's current large list of supporters? EXTREMELY small.

 

[ChRed2AKrisp]

oh and about half the companies have already announced games they're making. they're goes the withdrawl theory

 

[Zink]

Cashed- I was using hyperbole, of course there will be a difference but my point is that graphics and power is so good that it can't get much better.
Also that quote was made by a MS official trying to downgrade the Rev. I think the quote you meant was one from a developer that stated the Rev is a souped up Gamecube, power-wise. Which can be said of the 360 and PS3 as well- just differences in power. The Rev will have something totally new, something that will change the way we look at the whole gaming industry. What do the others have? Sony has their new Live thing and MS has a console that looks like a swastika.

 

[Mic_128]

Mc9 beat me to it. Note to self, read all pages before posting >.<

 

[Chill]

Cashed- I was using hyperbole, of course there will be a difference but my point is that graphics and power is so good that it can't get much better.

Even on a standard TV and they do look better than current gen graphics. I'm sure Cashed can point out that Farcry PC vs 360 link. Huge difference. Plus these are the earliest games. Since when have the first games set the benchmark for graphics?

Also that quote was made by a MS official trying to downgrade the Rev. I think the quote you meant was one from a developer that stated the Rev is a souped up Gamecube, power-wise.

Nintendo did say the systems would be similar. The first revolution devkits were literally gamecubes with wired controllers. Of course things have changed since then but not likely to a great extent.

Which can be said of the 360 and PS3 as well- just differences in power. The Rev will have something totally new, something that will change the way we look at the whole gaming industry. What do the others have? Sony has their new Live thing and MS has a console that looks like a swastika.

What do the others have? I'm going to go with games on this one. Before we knew about TPs rev functionality that didn't seem to stop people from saying 'this looks like it will be better than OoT'. The other systems may not have a new controller but the're not lacking where it matters.

I think I may have some info on pricing I'll edit this when I found out if it's real or not.

 

[Zink]

From the beginning...
Yes, current gen games do look worse than next gen. I was talking a more horizontal comparison, e.g., PS3 graphics are close to 360 graphics.



"Lacking where it matters"? So it just takes power to make a good console? I think you underestimate the revmote. Sure games are important, but also important is how you play them. Metal Gear Solid might sell PS3s now but not in 3 years. The revmote WILL sell revs in 3 years.

More later.

 

[Crimson King]

Fact is look at what Sony and Microsoft did. They answere what people wanted.

People wanted GOOD multiplayer, and MS did it so well, Sony copied it. People wanted better wireless controls and PS3 did just that. Nintendo just said "here is our remote control, deal with it *****es."

Also, don't use the whole GCN shell argument, because that is poor marketing to almost require people to buy an upgrade, like the expansion bay.

You guys really don't need to be so offended by all this. It's going to be ok, they are just toys.

 

[kaid]

And if nintendo bundles the shell with the revmote? They've done similar, everytime they make a game that needs some kind of expantion, they've bundled it as part of the package. (Exception, PSO and the net adapter, because you had to chose between broadband and uh, that other thing, and also because the game was made by the 3rd party company, Sega)

 

[RaptorHawk]

ed GOOD multiplayer, and MS did it so well, Sony copied it. People wanted better wireless controls and PS3 did just that. Nintendo just said "here is our remote control, deal with it *****es."

Wtf are you talking about?

 

[Bedi Vegeta]

If Nintendo wants to succeed, I believe they will have to bundle the shell like kaid said. They should also proceed to focus more on the shell market the hell out of this fact, stating that the console provides the conventional type of gameplay and stuff, PLUS the new super cool revmote yada yada yada...That's not to mention the whole downloading classic games thing as well. They need to market this shell, making it a larger part of the console, like one of two options, and try to chase after getting all of the other console games ported to Rev with the use of the shell, which will attract the mainstream gamers who just want the regular games and simply have to decide which console to play them on, PLUS they need to get as many third parties to make games with the use of the new controller, which seems to be happening already, with developers actually interested in doing so as well as making games for the other consoles. If Nintendo can attract the conventional third party games (I don't see why they couldn't be ported and stuff, with the shell and all, unless the console isn't actually powerful enough), then they could market it as the ultimate gaming machine, with regular third party games, revolution specific third party games with the remote, nintendo games for the revolution, AND all of nintendo's previous console's games.

The way things are going though, this won't happen, and it makes me sad. Nintendo seems to be going well with all of these things so far, with the exception of the regular third party games, which unfortunately is what attracts the main portion of gamers. Nintendo is not focusing on the shell at all, and I'm not sure if it even exists yet. Another downside is the actual machine. So far, it looks like it is the least powerful of all of the new consoles, and depending on how things progress, this may lead to some third party games not being suitable for the Revolution because it is not powerful enough. Nintendo does not seem to care about mainstream gamers at the moment, but if they had done things a bit differently, they could easily have attracted the full spectrum of gamers.

Microsoft and Sony, they seem to be going ok with what they are doing. They have never been too interested in new things, and focus on the mainstream gamers, with great success. Without the fierce competition, the gaming industry would not be able to say afloat, but Nintendo doesn't even seem to be trying anymore, claiming that they are on some higher plane of existence and are all about new and creative things. While this is cool also, they need to try to compete with the other companies if they want to survive, because they cannot stay alive with new and casual gamers alone.

Also, like Cashed said, the Rev may still be able to play ported games with the new controller and stuff, but most gamers will not like this. They like to stick with what they know, and if it is available on other "more powerful" consoles, they will pick them. If they have the option of playing games the same old way, plus the extra bonus of other control options, they will be attracted. People are like sheep, and are very impressionable. Most people do not do in depth research before they buy things, but rather just believe whatever they are told, through marketing and stuff. If they are not actually told about something, then it will have no effect on their decisions. I have friends at Uni who would probably consider themselves gamers, and they haven't even heard of the Revolution. If Nintendo wants to succeed, they need to market the hell out of each and every little feature of the Revolution.