The New Console Debates

[Giygas]

I laugh when people make ungrounded judgments. Nowhere does it say the Revolution will launch after the PS3. While that is the general consensus, I have heard rumored titles everywhere from May next year to the holiday season (and the same for the PS3). Show me proof that the Rev will come out 6 months after the PS3, or even that the Ps3 will come out 6 months after the 360, and I'll take you seriously.

And OMG twilite princey mite be on rev???!!! even tho ninty haz sad sevrl timz that it is DEFINITELYYYYY comin out 4 gamcb???!!! no mtr what???!!!

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

 

[Chill]

I laugh when people make ungrounded judgments. Nowhere does it say the Revolution will launch after the PS3. While that is the general consensus, I have heard rumored titles everywhere from May next year to the holiday season (and the same for the PS3). Show me proof that the Rev will come out 6 months after the PS3, or even that the Ps3 will come out 6 months after the 360, and I'll take you seriously.

And OMG twilite princey mite be on rev???!!! even tho ninty haz sad sevrl timz that it is DEFINITELYYYYY comin out 4 gamcb???!!! no mtr what???!!!

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

Not exactly proof but here are a few things to consider. Sony has stated they wanted to launch the PS3 by march. Nintendo is set to fully unveil the revolution as of May 9. While anything is possible if Nintendo doesn't unveil the console until May it's unlikely it will launch during the same month. However, the Revolutions memory maker said the console would release mid-2006.

But Twilight Princess needs to be brought into consideration. Iwata said he wants it to be the last "push" for the Gamecube. If TP releases at the same time as the backwards compatible Revolution why buy a Gamecube?

I think it's to early at this time to really tell, but so far all signs point to the Revolution being the last console released.

 

[RaptorHawk]

Heres something else to consider though...and im quoting this from IGN btw...."Sony's past products have been launched in Japan first, North America roughly six months later and then Europe and the rest of the world sometime thereafter."

 

[Crimson King]

Sony said at TGS they plan for a March - April release and Nintendo has said more on the Rev will be released at E3. Typically, if they were going to release it before E3, they may have wanted to give some showing of the games, like the PS3 did at E3 this year.

 

[kaid]

I'll believe that PS3 release date when I see it.

Nintendo, on the other hand, has a thing for waiting to the last minute to show stuff, then selling while it's still initially hyped. I woud not be suprised by a mid-may releace on the Rev, and nintendo has started a trend of simotanious worldwide launches. Sony, as Raptor just said, delays the american releace, which would give the Rev the advantage in the US and PAL territories.

 

[Giygas]

Of course Sony is aiming for Spring 2006.

In Japan.

 

[RaptorHawk]

Will 360 suffer the same fate as Dreamcast? Maybe. Check it out.

http://xcast.ytmnd.com/

 

[Cashed]

Yeah, because you know, Microsoft sure is in the same money position as Sega was.

On the PS3 release date though, I'm not thinking it'll make its Spring 2006 release... unless it's late spring, as in June. My reasoning? We've yet to see a playable PS3 game.

 

[Osco316]

If you check the article that is the source for that YTMND http://www.1up.com/do/feature?cId=3145154, you will see that 1up also lists why the 360 will NOT become the next Dreamcast.

 

[Chill]

On the PS3 release date though, I'm not thinking it'll make its Spring 2006 release... unless it's late spring, as in June. My reasoning? We've yet to see a playable PS3 game.

I hadn't thought of it before but I wonder if Sony is doing this on purpose. Most people will agree that Sony was the focus of attention last E3 with just a few trailers. Well, judging from what we've heard of SSBR, Nintendo doesn't sound like it's going to have a ton of things to show. Perhaps Sony thinks they can steal Nintendo's thunder by showing playable games at E3.

Just a thought.

 

[blaksheap82]

We pretty much all understand Nin's methods of secrecy, as annoying as they can be, but sometimes it definitely seems like they push it just a little too far. Westerners are not known for their patience like people from Asia (I know I'm stereotyping, but this is just for the sake of argument), especially in the US, and I could definitely see a lot of people getting fed up with waiting for any solid info on the Rev, so they go out and buy a PS3, even though it will probably cost at least $150 more. Now I see more why Nin is trying to sell the Rev as a secondary system.

That just made me think of something else: if the Rev is being strategized as a secondary console, why are they saying how much more third-party support they're getting this time around? If someone has more than one console, either a X360 or a PS3 and a Rev, wouldn't most people just buy a multi-platform game for whichever console has better graphics? Granted, we haven't seen any of the Rev's graphical capabilities, but we all know what Microsoft's focus is, graphics over gameplay, and they're probably still going to have at least slightly better graphics this time around.

 

[Mic_128]

Nintendo doesn't sound like it's going to have a ton of things to show. Perhaps Sony thinks they can steal Nintendo's thunder by showing playable games at E3.

I don't think so.

1. The Rev's final "secrets" will be announced at E3.

2. The Rev hasn't had even a screen shown, let alone a trailer.

So I don't think it's Sony trying to steal the spotlight as much as trying to stay on stage.

 

[McFox]

If someone has more than one console, either a X360 or a PS3 and a Rev, wouldn't most people just buy a multi-platform game for whichever console has better graphics?

Three words:

Soul Calibur 2

 

[Chill]

1. The Rev's final "secrets" will be announced at E3.

MEGATON

2. The Rev hasn't had even a screen shown, let alone a trailer.

Yes, and?

So I don't think it's Sony trying to steal the spotlight as much as trying to stay on stage.

Could be, like I said it was just a thought.

 

[Cashed]

but we all know what Microsoft's focus is, graphics over gameplay,

Oh man. We ALL know that. I mean, they don't provide any games that are fun, do they?

 

[Devilkoopa]

Rumor is that the rev. will only be $100, which gives it a good edge over the other two systems.


I havnt see nthat many screens and what not in general for the 3 consoles, but i predict that the 360 will pull a ps2: the fact that it is going to have a much longer head start than nintendo and sony will ensure that it will have a decent library once the ps3 comes out...but then again...MGS4. 'nuff said.

 

[Cashed]

The Revolution will not be $100. If Nintendo launched the DS at $150, do you honestly think they'll launch an actual console at a lower price?

 

[Crimson King]

Precisely. Consoles that are typically incredibly cheap are discredited as cheap. The 360 will not pull a PS2 because that was the previous generation. This gen will be EXTREMELY online oriented. Look at Live, it was thought that consoles would NEVER work online. Live disproved that by infinity. Sony had a very simple online plan that didn't use a pricing feature. (Cashed, remind me tomorrow to cancel Live by the way. I am "not allowed" if you catch my drift) Nintendo decided Online gaming was a fad and thusly took the 3rd place spot because of it. The DS created an online community that many are complaining about for being TOO simple. Ie. no chatting and it's hard to find people unless you know their codes and such.

Nintendo sounded like they learned their lessons as the plan to allow the ability to download past titles. But, will they allow you to play on titles online? Like Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles in 4 player mode without the tap? That's how they can innovate.

PS3 is doing what it does best. Create a console that allows developers to make great sequels and such as well as create whole franchises (Jak, Rachet and Clank, GTA, God of War, to name just a few).

XBox360 is already doing what it can do, create a console so powerful that develops will have no where's to go but up. And what they can do with the online program is limitless. Live Arcade is a great addition to allow gamers older titles they couldn't get (like Nintendo promised).

Nintendo has to use their strong points and right now, they aren't. They need to start creating game franchises instead of milking what they have. They need more games like Donkey Konga, Animal Crossing, Pikmin, quirky little games that allowed people to get hooked. Sadly, DK2 had nothing on the first. Animal Crossing took nearly 2 years to get a "sequel" when it's more of a port and Pikmin 2 just didn't do as well it could of.

 

[Devilkoopa]

oh sry i meant $200 (or 300? i forget what the price they said was) well then again it was a rumor...


i totally agree with you on the consoles, but i would really like to hear what nintendo has planned for a launch line-up. If i remmber correctly, back when all of this gen consoles came out, the gamecube had the most impressive by far...but recently it has fallen down a steep slope. Maybe nintendo is just working hard on the rev, i dont know, but my GCN has honestly been gathering dust since July.

 

[vidjogamer]

. If TP releases at the same time as the backwards compatible Revolution why buy a Gamecube?

Especially if revolution is the same price as a gamecube, or only $100 more.

 

[Giygas]

That's to be expected. Besides Twilight Princess (which somehow rumors keep popping up that it will be moved to the Rev) and maybe a "quirky" game like Odama or Chibi Robo, do GCN owners honestly have anything to look forward to? The "holiday" lineup this year is probably at its worst for GameCube. A myriad of Mario spin-offs and the poor Battalion Wars are its "best" offerings. The only real winner is Fire Emblem, but will the series ever even sell that well in the US?

 

[Cashed]

Nintendo sounded like they learned their lessons as the plan to allow the ability to download past titles. But, will they allow you to play on titles online? Like Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles in 4 player mode without the tap? That's how they can innovate.

Nintendo should do that, but we'll just have to see. With the 360, some of the Live Arcade games (so far Midway's Gauntlet and Smash TV have it, others will as well) give you the option to play on Live with anyone. I played some Gauntlet online last night and had a lot of fun. It'd be great for older Nintendo games such as TMNT Turtles in Time and such.

 

[blaksheap82]

I'm no programming expert, but that would take an awful lot of retrofitting to make classic Nin games playable online. But now that I think about it, if they're already being formatted to be downloaded, would it take that much more to make them playable online?

 

[McFox]

It doesn't really seem like it would be that hard. It should be set up the same as having two controllers, except the controller input is coming through the Wi-Fi from across the country/world. All they have to do is tweak how the game perceives where the controller input is coming from.

 

[Giygas]

Heck, a lot of classic NES/SNES games already are playable online through their respective ROMs...

 

[blaksheap82]

Wow, I didn't know that. I don't spend a lot of time messing around with computers like that, I just use them to do stuff like this and homework.

 

[TheCatPhysician]

Too bad Sega can't make consoles anymore.

Do you guys think it's possible that they might make a new console sometime in the future, after making money selling games? It seems like they are making quite a bit of money with stuff like Sonic Rush, Shadow the Hedgehog, etc. And I've seen their games advertized on TV and everything. They seem to be doing just fine. What's stopping them from just making a new console? I know so many people would buy it, because they would be so happy that Sega made a new console.

 

[kaid]

Why fork over the cash to design Dreamcast 2 when they can count on their old rival Nintendo to hold true to the ideals they both shared? Games is a more lucrative market, which is why 1st party-rich nintendo can keep within shouting distance of financial giants like M$ and $ony.

 

[McFox]

Making hardware is almost always a money loss. Companies make up the losses by selling software. Not just per machine, mind you, but they have to pay for all of the developement for the console, making the accessories, memory cards, etc., all of that is very expensive. Right now, Sega is skipping all of that and just raking in the profits of their games. There really would be no reason for them to make another console, they would just lose money.

 

[TheCatPhysician]

Well I guess I'm kind of new to how that whole thing works, but if making consoles loses them money, then why did Sega ever even make consoles in the first place?

Companies make up the losses by selling software.

How does Sony make up their losses? I think they've made a total of like...two games. Actually, I think the only games I've seen by them are Equinox and Solstice, which were for NES and SNES.

I know Sony isn't just losing money, but I don't quite understand how this works. The answer is probably obvious, but I'm kind of ********, so help me out.

 

[Mic_128]

3rd party software. I'm not 100% on this, but I'm pretty sure that people pay for the right to produce games for their console. And Sony also made the Ape Escape games apparently. And the Eye-toy stuff.

 

[Thomsonsst]

Well I guess I'm kind of new to how that whole thing works, but if making consoles loses them money, then why did Sega ever even make consoles in the first place? How does Sony make up their losses? I think they've made a total of like...two games. Actually, I think the only games I've seen by them are Equinox and Solstice, which were for NES and SNES.

I know Sony isn't just losing money, but I don't quite understand how this works. The answer is probably obvious, but I'm kind of ********, so help me out.

Microsoft is able to get money by the companies they own like Bungie and Rare. They usually make up for the loss and make a profit for both the game companies and Microsoft.

 

[Crimson King]

Why fork over the cash to design Dreamcast 2 when they can count on their old rival Nintendo to hold true to the ideals they both shared? Games is a more lucrative market, which is why 1st party-rich nintendo can keep within shouting distance of financial giants like M$ and $ony.

Sega will not make another console because it was too huge a deficit as making games. This enables them to focus on games rather than spending advertising dollars on the consoles as well. Nintendo is not within shouting distance of MS or Sony. They both have such a substancial boost of sales due to being sold earlier that GCN couldn't catch up. This generation proved that people DON'T just want Marios, they want games they can play again and again.

Also, keep in mind that Sony and MS aren't just game producers. They have infinite funds to spend on their consoles and with that, they can create a place for great games to go. Since Nintendo has less other ventures than the other two, so they are forced to be self-reliant and make the cheapest hardware. Because they designed the hardware, they know the ends and outs and can make great games on less expensive stuff.

 

[Devilkoopa]

Listin, im gonna be blunt: Sega's not that great anymore (dont even say shadow the hedgehog is good. A 7 can be good, but you would have to lie alot to say that a 4 is good)


Good new for the 360 fans though, a new shipment coming up soon, so hopefully many of the system bugs have been fixed at this point.

 

[Chill]

Well I guess I'm kind of new to how that whole thing works, but if making consoles loses them money, then why did Sega ever even make consoles in the first place? How does Sony make up their losses? I think they've made a total of like...two games. Actually, I think the only games I've seen by them are Equinox and Solstice, which were for NES and SNES.

I know Sony isn't just losing money, but I don't quite understand how this works. The answer is probably obvious, but I'm kind of ********, so help me out.

Well, when they made consoles it was just them and Nintendo so they didn't really have a reason not to have a console.

Sony makes its money on all those third party games. They also make money off of second party games and they have alot of those. Second parties only make games for one company they just are not owned by them. And as mentioned they *gasp* have first party games. Here are a few of them Ape escape, Legend of Dragoon, Ico, God of War and Shadow of the Colossus. I think they also made Gran Turismo but I'm not sure. There is more but I don't exactly have a list of first party Sony games lying around.

 

[DreamCaster]

Sony and Microsoft are more or less two computer/electronic entertainment companies that have now turned their sights onto the the ever growing video game console market (thanks to mainly Nintendo's efforts), mostly just "hosting" thrid party (exclusive) games to draw their coustomers. It wouldn't be any different if, say, Apple or Samsung suddenly began making their own home consoles. Nintendo however isn't a computer/electronic entertainment conglomerate, they simply make games, their only hardware being the console you play those games on... nothing more (no CD players, televisions, laptops, digital cameras, etc., or anything else like that) more or less just games (with the occasional console add on... i.e. Gameboy Player, GBA link cable, and various controller pariperals, etc.)

IMO the real winners in the console wars is the company that is able to produce the most thrid party exclusives. I don't care how good Nintendo's games are, when you step back they can only make so many games and so many kinds or games. More thrid party exclusivetitles equals more games and more variety in gaming. That is why PlayStaion 2 ruled over the current generation with an iron fist, they simply had more exclusive titles and sheer volume to choose from (the same reason why Nintendo was so popular with NES and SNES, simply due to lack of competition Nintendo had totoal rule over thrid party games, also why Nintendo is still winning the handheld front, more thrid parties back Nintendo).

It really don't matter how well a first party is, a first party is after just one company and they can only make so many games at a time. In Nintendo's case their first party games are all stellar, but there still is no reason why thrid parties can't also be developing stellar titles for their console as well.

 

[kaid]

IMO the real winners in the console wars is the company that is able to produce the most thrid party exclusives. I don't care how good Nintendo's games are, when you step back they can only make so many games and so many kinds or games. More thrid party exclusivetitles equals more games and more variety in gaming. That is why PlayStaion 2 ruled over the current generation with an iron fist, they simply had more exclusive titles and sheer volume to choose from (the same reason why Nintendo was so popular with NES and SNES, simply due to lack of competition Nintendo had totoal rule over thrid party games, also why Nintendo is still winning the handheld front, more thrid parties back Nintendo).

So, given that every 3rd-party in existance has praised the Nintendo Revolution's... unorthodox controller, it stands to reason that they will be making games that use it, and every single one of them will be an exclusive title.

Throw in how nintendo is making it easier to program games for the Rev, and I predict that, by DC's standard, Nintendo will actually "win" this time. This is not to say they will get the best sales, simply that they will have the most 3rd party exclusives.

 

[DreamCaster]

So, given that every 3rd-party in existance has praised the Nintendo Revolution's... unorthodox controller, it stands to reason that they will be making games that use it, and every single one of them will be an exclusive title.

Throw in how nintendo is making it easier to program games for the Rev, and I predict that, by DC's standard, Nintendo will actually "win" this time. This is not to say they will get the best sales, simply that they will have the most 3rd party exclusives.

You can only assume that much only if thrid parties make more games exclusivly for the Rev than PS3 or Xbox360. Just because the Rev will have an innovative gameplay syestem doesn't mean every game for it will be an exclusive title (you play a ported FPS on PC with a keyboard or Console with a controller, it's still the same FPS). There's still the possibility that thrid party developers may deveop more titles for PS3 or Xbox360.

 

[blaksheap82]

Not to mention, nothing says it's engraved in stone that consumers will want the Rev-exclusive tidbits on a third-party game. Anytime I heard someone praise the Xbox over the Cube, it was the same stupid, old, ignorant graphics argument, as in "I don't care about gameplay, I just want better graphics", which we all know was not a hard and fast rule. It all depends on whether cosumers/gamers want the Rev exclusive stuff in a game over the PS3 and X360 specific exclusives.

 

[Crimson King]

Well, when a game is on all 3 consoles, typically you would go for graphics. That's what I do.

Also, we all know when a 3rd party says exclusive that means they will never make another game for any console *coughs* Capcom's Big 5 *coughs*.

Fact is, the developers will try all consoles for the first few games and with 360 out already most will already like that one. As time goes on, they will try the Rev and PS3 and go with the easiest to work with, but more than likely will choose the highest selling console. This is why PS2 saw so many great games before the others did, ie GTA and MGS. Sure they were ported later but by the time they were EVERYONE played them in some capacity.