• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Reggie Speaks... Yet Again

Minotauro

Finds Purchase on Dog Nutz
ironichaos said:
That's a strange question.

How does the iPod benefit you? Does it give you suitably superior sound quality compared to a CD? Does it give you suitably cheaper music compared to a CD? No, but it does benefit you by giving you a convenient, appealing form and simple, easy to use interface. Sacrifices must sometimes be made for the greater good.

I think you misunderstood what I said. The person I responded to was pointing out that Nintendo is the only one who profits from hardware. In response, I was stating that that is of no concern to me. I'd rather a company take a loss and give me the features I want instead of offering a barebones system that they can make money on.
 

Minotauro

Finds Purchase on Dog Nutz
monkeyrun said:
I bet you are one of those people who worship Microsoft for losing 4 billion dollars FOR THE GAMERS !!!!

I don't worship them but I certainly appreciate it. Ignoring controller mechanisms, I'd take a $400 PS3 with Blu Ray capability, HDMI output, and tremendously better graphics over a $200 Revolution with marginally better graphics and no HD support.
 
Minotauro said:
I don't worship them but I certainly appreciate it. Ignoring controller mechanisms, I'd take a $400 PS3 with Blu Ray capability, HDMI output, and tremendously better graphics over a $200 Revolution with marginally better graphics and no HD support.

The question is will you also appreciate paying $70.00 for Madden 2010 that has the same gameplay as 2002-2009 but with an updated player roster? (for example)

and not to mention paying another $400 2 years from now when your playstation breaks.. ;)
 


Don't eff with Reg.
 
Look at this generation compared to the first one 15 years ago. Research today tell us that among those 52 million machines already sold, a full 24 percent are part of dual-system households, and eight percent reside under roofs with all three consoles. The math shows that our 52 million systems have only reaches a little better than 35 million discreet American households, about 31 percent of all current U.S. homes. Back in the 8-bit days, there was only one console -- the original Nintendo Entertainment System -- which meant there were no dual-households. So 31 million systems equaled 31 million homes. And that represented 33 percent of all American homes at the time. It's unsettling to see that in 15 years, we really haven't increased the percentage of game-playing homes. He population has grown, but our relative popularity really hasn't.

This is particularly perplexing because every year, we imagine millions of 10 or 11-year-olds convincing their parents to buy them their first home systems, while older players carry their game-playing passion further and further into adulthood. In this scenario, the industry should be booming. But instead, we're left asking, "where's the growth?"


Why is he measuring the success/growth of the industry through Hardware sales? I thought it was all about the games? His logic is flawed...using multi-console ownership as a sign of a downtrend is ridiculous. Sounds like he's longing for the days of console monopolies nd using that as the only benchmark for growth. We're buying more SOFTWARE and that's where the profits reside.
 
monchi-kun said:
Why is he measuring the success/growth of the industry through Hardware sales? I thought it was all about the games? His logic is flawed...using multi-console ownership as a sign of a downtrend is ridiculous. Sounds like he's longing for the days of console monopolies nd using that as the only benchmark for growth. We're buying more SOFTWARE and that's where the profits reside.
That's not what he's saying. He's stating that the number of unique households owning games has not significantly increased.

Edit: The point of which being that the market is not expanding. There hasn't been an increase in the number of people that own hardware. Nintendo wants to expand the user base, so you can measure the success of that goal in the way Reggie is talking about.
 

thorns

Banned
ironichaos said:
That's a strange question.

How does the iPod benefit you? Does it give you suitably superior sound quality compared to a CD? Does it give you suitably cheaper music compared to a CD? No, but it does benefit you by giving you a convenient, appealing form and simple, easy to use interface. Sacrifices must sometimes be made for the greater good.

that's a flawed analogy, because there's nothing else that gives considerably superior sound quality compared to a CD.
 
mariosbrother said:
That's not what he's saying. He's stating that the number of unique households owning games has not significantly increased.

Edit: The point of which being that the market is not expanding. There hasn't been an increase in the number of people that own hardware. Nintendo wants to expand the user base, so you can measure the success of that goal in the way Reggie is talking about.

Obviously Reggie isn't taking into account households who can't AFFORD videogames. In the same household there is potential to reach multiple audiences. I've been a gamer all my life and i've tried to get my wife to play games as well. Only when Monkeyball came out did she do a 180 on her "videogames are a waste of time" stance. Does this mean she needs to go and buy her own Gamecube?
 

Mallrat83

Banned
digitalKiva said:
The question is will you also appreciate paying $70.00 for Madden 2010 that has the same gameplay as 2002-2009 but with an updated player roster? (for example)
Only those who don't play Madden on a yearly basis and/or don't understand the intricacies of football make statements this ignorant. Madden changed more from 2004-2005 and then again from 2005-2006 than any change ever in the 2K series.
 

vitaflo

Member
Back in the 8-bit days, there was only one console -- the original Nintendo Entertainment System -- which meant there were no dual-households. So 31 million systems equaled 31 million homes.

I was a dual household. NES and SMS.

The over arching idea Nintendo has is right. They have to change the game as it were or they'll never survive, and there are a lot of good examples of other companies doing this successfully (and he named a few).

The only thing that gets me, and I know Reggie talks like this because he has to be confident, is how much they know what they're doing will change gaming for the better, and that they will be one of these new "blue ocean" companies. For every company that changed the scope of their industry by going in a new direction, there are plenty that tried the same thing and failed miserably.

I give Nintendo a lot of credit for at least trying something new (mainly because I want something new), but just doing something different doesn't mean it's going to be an instant success. Only time will tell.
 
monchi-kun said:
Obviously Reggie isn't taking into account households who can't AFFORD videogames. In the same household there is potential to reach multiple audiences. I've been a gamer all my life and i've tried to get my wife to play games as well. Only when Monkeyball came out did she do a 180 on her "videogames are a waste of time" stance. Does this mean she needs to go and buy her own Gamecube?
Assuming you and your wife live together, I think you're missing the point. If you were to do that, you would not increase the percentage of households that have a game system. Nintendo would like to do that. If your friend was the same way initially with video games, then came over and played game X, it is Nintendo's hope that they enjoy it so much, they are inclined to also go purchase a system for their own house when, before having played the game, they never would have entertained the thought of owning a video game system.

Taking into account households that can't afford videogames is entirely irrelevent - what are relevent are those households that aren't willing to afford videogames. Nintendo has their collective eye on those.
 

koam

Member
Zaxxon said:
This isn't exactly some random press release where you would bold 4000 sprites on screen!! or something. It lays out what Nintendo is doing next gen from a pure business perspective. This speech was directed at members of the business community, not hardcore game fans, which is why it's interesting to read.

:(

I read it anyway, this is old from 2-3 weeks ago. (or whenever that press event thing was)
 
vitaflo said:
I was a dual household. NES and SMS.

The over arching idea Nintendo has is right. They have to change the game as it were or they'll never survive, and there are a lot of good examples of other companies doing this successfully (and he named a few).

The only thing that gets me, and I know Reggie talks like this because he has to be confident, is how much they know what they're doing will change gaming for the better, and that they will be one of these new "blue ocean" companies. For every company that changed the scope of their industry by going in a new direction, there are plenty that tried the same thing and failed miserably.

I give Nintendo a lot of credit for at least trying something new (mainly because I want something new), but just doing something different doesn't mean it's going to be an instant success. Only time will tell.

I think Nintendo know its a risk(not guaranteed), but because they have been in this business for 20 years, they're confident in their ability to provide a change that can be a success.

Its strange now to see so many gamers, have such doubt and pessimistic attitudes toward Nintendo. I read where some say, they didn't ask for the Revmote. I wonder if anyone asked for GTA3, analog thumbsticks, Halo, RE4, SOTC, Goldeneye, Dual analog, rumble packs, every Live features, we don't ask for any of it. They're presented to us, we react positively or negatively. Most of the games, added functionality to controllers weren't created based on focus groups of 20 gamers.
 

vitaflo

Member
OG_Original Gamer said:
Its strange now to see so many gamers, have such doubt and pessimistic attitudes toward Nintendo.

Well, such is the nature of any console war first of all. But besides that, I think it's mostly the vocal hardcore reacting to Nintendo ignoring them. Reggie even said it, the hardcore are getting harder. Of course they're going to be pissed when Nintendo goes off and markets towards the ultra causals and non gamers, because that's not them. And as we all know here, heaven forbid any company do something that you don't like.

In the end it remains to be seen whether the masses accept the new system. Most of the talk on these boards doesn't really matter to the people Nintendo is trying to target now, so their complains are in vain.
 

Monk

Banned
thorns said:
that's a flawed analogy, because there's nothing else that gives considerably superior sound quality compared to a CD.

While I dont get into these music arguements, you have to be fucking joking.
 

Slurpy

*drowns in jizz*
Minotauro said:
I think you misunderstood what I said. The person I responded to was pointing out that Nintendo is the only one who profits from hardware. In response, I was stating that that is of no concern to me. I'd rather a company take a loss and give me the features I want instead of offering a barebones system that they can make money on.

Sony and MS have other divisions where they can make up the money they lose in the videogame division. Nintendo has no such luxury. Xbox cost Microsoft billions. They didn't make a penny from it. PS3 will likely bleed $ for years. What you're proposing is for Nintendo to go bankrupt. Its a good thing you don't have any say in this.
 

Drensch

Member
He's wrong about gaming dying. Console sales (both home and handheld) show that the industry is still quite healthy. Game sales also support this.

Actually they show a slow down, and just a smaller number buying more.

Look at this generation compared to the first one 15 years ago. Research today tell us that among those 52 million machines already sold, a full 24 percent are part of dual-system households, and eight percent reside under roofs with all three consoles. The math shows that our 52 million systems have only reaches a little better than 35 million discreet American households, about 31 percent of all current U.S. homes. Back in the 8-bit days, there was only one console -- the original Nintendo Entertainment System -- which meant there were no dual-households. So 31 million systems equaled 31 million homes. And that represented 33 percent of all American homes at the time. It's unsettling to see that in 15 years, we really haven't increased the percentage of game-playing homes. He population has grown, but our relative popularity really hasn't.

Nintendo is absolutely correct in choosing the path they have with the Revolution. Because for the most part "people that actually like to play console games" have lost almost complete interest in Nintendo. That is why i think it is very important for Nintendo to start to try and create a brand new market to sell their product to. Because if they try to appeal to the market that actually likes to play games, they would just be commiting suicide.

Regardless of what you think about Nintendo, you have to admit that they are smart enough to realize that in order for them to continue to stay in the console business they are gonna have to go after a completely different market since the majority of people that like to play actual games no longer seem to be interested in what Nintendo has to offer.

Then why do they, on a consistent basis sell more units than anyone but EA? And EA only beats them in sheer skus.

Nintendo had best watch out because they're making quick and easy money with these 'non-games' like Nintendogs & Brain Flex etc. If Nintendo see these as more profitable than your normal Zelda, Mario etc. what can we expect from them?

Well like they have said time and time again, you make games for everyone. Fire Emblems and Smash bros for typical gamers. Nintendogs and Brain Training for "non-gamers". Both are hugely profitable.


Man, his hollywood comparisons are really bad.
Are they? Both industries live off the same demographic and push similar product for that demo. Both are showing signs of growth problems. Both face the same kind of cost pressures. Both have a untapped female market. Both have shown that by appealing to a audience large than their core (females, other person not typical of their audience) they can expanded hugely as in Titanic and Nintendogs and the Sims.

nintendogs and the godfather may both appeal to broader audiences than noisy action fare, but the godfather's real distinction is in its thematic and artistic sophistication.
This is an amazingly short sighted and ill conceived statement. Nintendogs is not a movie. The way games communicate to audiences are unique. You're comparing the necessity of Taxi Driver's method of communicating a narrative to an audience. It is almost an absolute requirement of a movie to communicate a story. Games do not require any such constraints. Can games be a narratve medium conveying stories and emotion? Sure. Do games require this structure to be an effective game? No. Comparing the narrative basis of movie vs. game is unfair and illogical. Just as analyzing the "game structure" of Schindler's List would show it as a terrible design, bereft of any coherent design theme. Why? Because it fufills almost no requirements of being a game, let alone a good one. Nintendogs thematically poor structure compared to Taxi Driver is a given. Taxi driver requires such a structure to be remotely compelling in any way, while Nintendogs can do without. I would even argue that many of the best games ever made are lacking in thematic sophistication. But they don't need that. Games are not necessarily a narrative media.
 

Triumph

Banned
Hey guys, I heard that Reggie farted the other day but I haven't been able to confirm it. Do you think that deserves it's own thread, too?
 
Slurpy said:
Sony and MS have other divisions where they can make up the money they lose in the videogame division. Nintendo has no such luxury. Xbox cost Microsoft billions. They didn't make a penny from it. PS3 will likely bleed $ for years. What you're proposing is for Nintendo to go bankrupt. Its a good thing you don't have any say in this.
their first film is scheduled for release next year.

call it a hunch, but i have a feeling that it's going to be a succesfull venture for them.
 

Slurpy

*drowns in jizz*
Raoul Duke said:
Hey guys, I heard that Reggie farted the other day but I haven't been able to confirm it. Do you think that deserves it's own thread, too?

This was the best videogame related piece I've read in a while. 95% of the threads on the 1st page are more worthless than this.

What exactly is your point?
 
Reggie bitching about the movie industry being on a decline is partly true but being viewed through a shitty filter.

The movie industry pre 1998 didn't have the luxury of a massive DVD industry to support it so people were more forced to go to a movie, rent a VHS tape, buy a VHS tape, or get pay per view.

Around 2002 the DVD industry had absolutely exploded and studios were seeing revenues from the channel that were far eclipsing VHS tape sales. People were actively going out and buying movies instead of renting them.

Now, Pay Per View is obviously dropping because it costs more than half as much to get a PPV movie as buy a DVD. Renting a DVD costs half of getting a PPV movie. PPV won't let you pause, rewind, or play over for most people with basic cable boxes. The quality of the presentation is also ass. Basically that format as is is becoming defunct. Which doesn't mean that big movies are dying.

Now back to DVD most people who buy DVDs have over the last 3 years have completed their movie collections and are now waiting to buy teh few movies that have yet to be released on the format so of course after an explosive first few years of major adoption sales are tapering off. It is natural and not a sign that movies are dying.

Theater revenue is dropping as well but the DVD market is compensating massively. theater revenue has declined mostly because people are watching DVDs and also the film distributors are not helping things by having their own movies hit DVD sometimes 2 months after their theatrical run has started. People are learning to wait for the DVD as opposed to going to the theater. The more people that wait the quicker the film hits the format.

As well the movie industry simply hasn't been making a lot of good movies. Over the last 3 years there has been a serious drop in quality between films. Rotten Tomatoes has lots of theatrically released films per year on their list scored with a less than 10% rating.

Now...we come to the more intersting part. Reggie is simply a marketer and he is driven by trends and what he thinks the game audience wants to see. He sees falling revenues and thinks that there is a shakeup in order and that spectacle is dead.

Well, before Gladiator the sword and sandals films were supposedly dead. Before Unforgiven the western was dead. Before Saving Private Ryan the WW2 films were thought dead. What do these movies have in common? They were all thought to be films in dead genres that ended up being great films and made huge sums of money and went on to grab Academy Awards. All that matters is quality and whether people are made aware of the quality or not. Hell before LOTR big literary adaptations and medieval fantasy films were thought to be dead or at the very least risky.

We could look at arcade revenues between 1995 to the present and see a huge decline to the point where there is practically NO arcade market anymore. That simply doesn't mean that video game popularity has declined. As well quoting from that recent poll of students whether or not they are interested in video games anymore is also foolish because it was a foolish poll.

I'm glad that Nintendo has made Nintendogs and Brain Training games but I can guarantee that they will continue to make these "new" (read tamagotchi and puzzler) types of games until they become unpopular all over again.
 
evilromero said:
That same structure existed in 1985 as well. He is right about one thing- the videogame industry was as strong and robust at one point in time. The ability to play simple, yet compelling software such as Super Mario Bros. attracted a broader audience. Lately, the more complex games become, the more we push away the Baby Boomb gen and the early Y generation. If you notice the most popular games among this crowd are Zuma, Bejeweled and parlor games. Games that require little instruction and are universally understood.

No, it really didn't. Yes, there were computer games and console games and some chintzy dedicated handhelds out there...but none of this was very mainstream in 1985...anywhere. Now, gaming is much, much more visible and part of the mainstream, with at least seven well-supported main platforms out there: DS, PSP, GBA, XBOX, GC, PS2, and Windows. Just counting the console market, gaming is stronger than it's ever been, outside of Japan anyway. Add in the mainstream presence of handhelds, like the GBA, DS, and PSP...then we've added massive numbers of gamers to the total. Add in PC/Mac/*nix and that number's even larger. The console market cannot dominate the entire spectrum of video gaming because it's got various other gaming platforms that appeal more to different kinds of people for different reasons...and the types of games that appear on these platforms are generally dominated by certain genres of varying complexity in gameplay and interface.

If someone wants to play simpler shit, they have the handheld market, a huge sub-category of popular titles on the computer, and of course, lots and lots of these types of games on the consoles...the ones with the advanced graphics 'n shit. If they want to play more complex shit, they can. That's the fucking beauty of the current set-up, as fucked up as it can be...you have lots and lots of options and can actually choose to play them on almost any of the main platforms...with some specializing in simpler or more complex experiences than others. But the choice and availability is there...and it's only getting better.

I've nothing against trying some new interface approach, like Ninty is going for...but they shouldn't strain so much to justify its existence (and their new system's main selling point) as a solution to a largely imaginary crisis. Fresher content is more important than fresher hardware, that they have right...just not in the same way they're pitching it. The most important thing to do is to make it fucking easier to make games, period. That's the real issue, IMO.
 
phantomile co. said:
would anyone care to counter any of Reggie's comments?
Only that most of his points go against what Nintendo has done and continue to do. In short this guy is a fucking useless turd/tool and that no one should listen to a goddamn thing he says.
 
Suburban Cowboy said:
Tell that to Sony...

There's obviously a group of people out there that want more console-like experiences on the go...boo on them for choice! Ninty still reigns supreme in that space, and their games still sell incredibly well. Additionally, many big sellers on the PSP are simpler titles.
 

Chittagong

Gold Member
Now is a perfect time to repost a long writeup I originally posted in June:

http://www.ga-forum.com/showthread.php?t=53465

Nintendo's new strategy - why we shouldn't hope for "PSP killers" and "PS3 killers"

Nintendo is taking a completely different strategic path from the competition. In fact, I believe Dyack is genuine here:

Q: The official PR line of why your company and Nintendo discontinued your relationship was "business is business", is that all there really is to it?

Dyack: You know, I spoke with Matt from IGN about it, but at the end of the day, Nintendo is going down a strategic path where we believe they want to make smaller, simpler games. But Silicon Knights is not built for smaller, simpler games. We love those guys but as much as we tried to come to a half-way point to make a Silicon Knights game that fits within a strategy that Nintendo wants, we just really couldn’t do it. So it’s really strategic differences. The industry is massive, so we both could be right, but at the end of the day, we have to take the company in directions that we think will be successful for us, and that is the bottom line. So it’s pretty straight forward.

Many would love to see Nintendo create a kick ass Game Boy with a PSP quality screen and super processor, and a full next generation home entertainment system that would beat PS3. This isn't the path of profitability for Nintendo, however - I believe.

They might be on the wrong path for fanboys wishing to see them humiliate Sony on traditional turf, but they are on the correct path for the shareholders.

My interpretation of Nintendo's strategic thinking is:

1. THERE IS NO MONEY FOR #2 IN THE TRADITIONAL CONSOLE RACE
Nintendo has realized that in the high-spec hardware race the
- margins on hardware are incredibly small to negative
- first-party games are huge, 10-20M USD risks every time
- taking in account HW margin and 1st party risk, lifetime platform profitability will be achieved only by market leader
- Nintendo hasn't got in traditional terms an edge on Sony, so why waste cash trying like MS

2. SONY VS. MICROSOFT BATTLE WILL DRAIN THE MARKET FROM ANY PROFIT
With two resourceful companies fighting for number one spot, the market profitability will be destroyed. The following means will be used:
- Hardware pricing below profitability
- Cuts in third-party margins
- Excessive marketing campaigns

3. NINTENDO PROFITS BY CHANGING INTO A DIFFERENT MARKET SETTING
Nintendo DS is a manifestation of Nintendo's thinking - an affordable device that plays simple yet fun games, with low-spec components and day one profitability on HW.

4. USE THE NARROW YET TALENTED DEVELOPMENT BANDWIDTH WISELY
Nintendo's development and 2nd party management resources are very limited but extremely talented. Nintendo can maximize the benefit of them by using them to do a multitude of smaller projects. Nintendo DS software (in Japan) has shown the most astounding shift we've seen in 10 years towards entirely new types of content - simpler, shorter, more accessible titles. Key examples of very recent franchises are:
- Elektroplankton
- Nintendogs
- Brain Training for Adults
- Made in Wario
- Polarium
- Daikasso! Band Brothers
- Another Code
- Simple DS

5. CATER A LIMITED "BIG SCALE" OFFERING OF SURE HITS
Nintendo realizes that within the people who buy simple and fun devices there is some, albeit limited, appreciation for deeper and more immersive games. Hence, Nintendo keeps on bringing out a limited amount of big scale blockbusters, such as Zelda and Metroid.

6. CREATE NEW CHANNEL OF DISTRIBUTION TO OVERCOME RETAIL SHORTHAND
Nintendo has been experimenting on online distribution and DRM with iQue for some while. These learnings will be leveraged on Revolution and the back catalog.

7. TAKE HOME CONSOLE TO A SIMILAR ROUTE AS DS - NOT CUTTING EDGE BUT FUN
Everything we know about Revolution shows that it follows the DS example of innovating through simpler games and intuitive controls. Key factors for Revolution are
- Day 1 profitability on hardware due to lower spec components
- Deliver bare acceptable minimum to minimize cost, as with no HD
- Innovate on interface to create new types of games, the "revolution"
- Very easily accessible hardware that is easy to fire up for short gaming sessions

8. LEGITIMIZE NEW "SIMPLE GAMING" APPROACH WITH MARKET NEED
Nintendo's rhetoric has been for a long time that "games have become too complex" and "gamers have gotten bored". They key here, I believe, is that Nintendo believes that it cannot have a competitive edge on complex games in a big scale - their development pipeline doesn't scale to 10-20 games per year, nor does their 2nd party management capability.

The conclusions I would make at this point is that

- Expect difference between Revolution and PS3 / Xbox 360 reflect difference between PSP and DS
- Nintendo will not be doing high end multimedia devices
- Nintendo will not be doing "PSP killers" or "PS3 killers"
- Nintendo will do simple and affordable devices
- Microsoft and Sony will compete traditional market to zero profitability
- Nintendo will make a lot of money

The only things I can quite fit into my theory are

- online gaming
- Play-Yan and DVD compatibility
 
Chittagong said:
- Expect difference between Revolution and PS3 / Xbox 360 reflect difference between PSP and DS




I'd expect the Revolution to be more powerful than the Gamecube. So I'll go with the difference being like the Dreamcast and the Xbox. Same gen graphics roughly, but a noticable difference. Not a PSP/DS gap.
 
Chittagong said:
Now is a perfect time to repost a long writeup I originally posted in June:

http://www.ga-forum.com/showthread.php?t=53465

Nintendo's new strategy - why we shouldn't hope for "PSP killers" and "PS3 killers"

Nintendo is taking a completely different strategic path from the competition. In fact, I believe Dyack is genuine here:



Many would love to see Nintendo create a kick ass Game Boy with a PSP quality screen and super processor, and a full next generation home entertainment system that would beat PS3. This isn't the path of profitability for Nintendo, however - I believe.

They might be on the wrong path for fanboys wishing to see them humiliate Sony on traditional turf, but they are on the correct path for the shareholders.

My interpretation of Nintendo's strategic thinking is:

1. THERE IS NO MONEY FOR #2 IN THE TRADITIONAL CONSOLE RACE
Nintendo has realized that in the high-spec hardware race the
- margins on hardware are incredibly small to negative
- first-party games are huge, 10-20M USD risks every time
- taking in account HW margin and 1st party risk, lifetime platform profitability will be achieved only by market leader
- Nintendo hasn't got in traditional terms an edge on Sony, so why waste cash trying like MS

2. SONY VS. MICROSOFT BATTLE WILL DRAIN THE MARKET FROM ANY PROFIT
With two resourceful companies fighting for number one spot, the market profitability will be destroyed. The following means will be used:
- Hardware pricing below profitability
- Cuts in third-party margins
- Excessive marketing campaigns

3. NINTENDO PROFITS BY CHANGING INTO A DIFFERENT MARKET SETTING
Nintendo DS is a manifestation of Nintendo's thinking - an affordable device that plays simple yet fun games, with low-spec components and day one profitability on HW.

4. USE THE NARROW YET TALENTED DEVELOPMENT BANDWIDTH WISELY
Nintendo's development and 2nd party management resources are very limited but extremely talented. Nintendo can maximize the benefit of them by using them to do a multitude of smaller projects. Nintendo DS software (in Japan) has shown the most astounding shift we've seen in 10 years towards entirely new types of content - simpler, shorter, more accessible titles. Key examples of very recent franchises are:
- Elektroplankton
- Nintendogs
- Brain Training for Adults
- Made in Wario
- Polarium
- Daikasso! Band Brothers
- Another Code
- Simple DS

5. CATER A LIMITED "BIG SCALE" OFFERING OF SURE HITS
Nintendo realizes that within the people who buy simple and fun devices there is some, albeit limited, appreciation for deeper and more immersive games. Hence, Nintendo keeps on bringing out a limited amount of big scale blockbusters, such as Zelda and Metroid.

6. CREATE NEW CHANNEL OF DISTRIBUTION TO OVERCOME RETAIL SHORTHAND
Nintendo has been experimenting on online distribution and DRM with iQue for some while. These learnings will be leveraged on Revolution and the back catalog.

7. TAKE HOME CONSOLE TO A SIMILAR ROUTE AS DS - NOT CUTTING EDGE BUT FUN
Everything we know about Revolution shows that it follows the DS example of innovating through simpler games and intuitive controls. Key factors for Revolution are
- Day 1 profitability on hardware due to lower spec components
- Deliver bare acceptable minimum to minimize cost, as with no HD
- Innovate on interface to create new types of games, the "revolution"
- Very easily accessible hardware that is easy to fire up for short gaming sessions

8. LEGITIMIZE NEW "SIMPLE GAMING" APPROACH WITH MARKET NEED
Nintendo's rhetoric has been for a long time that "games have become too complex" and "gamers have gotten bored". They key here, I believe, is that Nintendo believes that it cannot have a competitive edge on complex games in a big scale - their development pipeline doesn't scale to 10-20 games per year, nor does their 2nd party management capability.

The conclusions I would make at this point is that

- Expect difference between Revolution and PS3 / Xbox 360 reflect difference between PSP and DS
- Nintendo will not be doing high end multimedia devices
- Nintendo will not be doing "PSP killers" or "PS3 killers"
- Nintendo will do simple and affordable devices
- Microsoft and Sony will compete traditional market to zero profitability
- Nintendo will make a lot of money

The only things I can quite fit into my theory are

- online gaming
- Play-Yan and DVD compatibility

Bold part. Wrong.
 

Gahiggidy

My aunt & uncle run a Mom & Pop store, "The Gamecube Hut", and sold 80k WiiU within minutes of opening.
citrus lump said:
So I'll go with the difference being like the Dreamcast and the Xbox....
That would be pretty fucking bad. Espcially since the Xbox came out two years after the Dreamcast... while the 360 comes out one year before the Revolution. That would mean Nintendo is about three years behind the curve in technology.


What would you pay for Dreamcast tech in the year 2002?
 

DrGAKMAN

Banned
OG_Original Gamer said:
Bold part. Wrong.

Back when he originally posted that, I'll say this in his deffence: 1) there was alot of Nintendo people comparing NDS & Revolution and 2) Merrick hadn't made the "no noticable difference between Revolution & competing hardware in the visuals department" statement. Going by that, it's totally logical to expect Revolution to be every bit as powerful as the competition JUST that it won't have HDTV output.

This whole MS marketing tool is just that...a tool. It was THEM who had said that Sony promised Toy Story visuals with PS2. It was THEM who were the first to openly attack GCN's shell design. It was THEM who had spoke of the "HD era". Which brings me to another point: X360 is supposedly the "HD era" yet it doesn't have HDTV cable output, nor does it have a HD disc format and a top-tier 1ST party franchise game (PGR) won't even be in HiDef...it's almost rediculous. If anyone should get shit about this whole HD debate, it's them!

We knew from the start that Revolution probably wasn't gonna have HD output...why is everyone in a tizzy about old news? It's small, cheap & low powered...doesn't mean it's inferior, just means it's a different option to the "$400 *and* you need a new TV to see the difference" consoles.
 
DrGAKMAN said:
This whole MS marketting tool is just that...a tool. It was THEM who had said that Sony promiced Toy Story visuals with PS2. It was THEM who were the first to openly attack GCN's shell design. It was THEM who had harrolded the "HD era". Which brings me to another point: X360 is suppossedly the "HD era" yet it doesn't have HDTV cable output, nor does it have a HD disc format and a top-tier 1ST party franchise game (PGR) won't even be in HiDef...it's almost rediculous. If anyone should get shit about this whole HD debate, it's them!

Nice spelling there, Tex.

<response forthcoming...bowl reload>

*shakes head and wonders about the quality of the herb just smoked*

*bowl is cashed out*

It's just marketing, dude. Who cares.
 

Gahiggidy

My aunt & uncle run a Mom & Pop store, "The Gamecube Hut", and sold 80k WiiU within minutes of opening.
MightyHedgehog said:
Nice spelling there, Tex.

<response forthcoming...bowl reload>

*shakes head and wonders about the quality of the herb just smoked*

*bowl is cashed out*

It's just marketing, dude. Who cares.
*Reports poster to Tempe, Arizona police department.*
 

JavyOO7

Member
crisdecuba said:
You know, this brings up a good question. For those that don't like what Nintendo is doing or the path they're taking or whatever - do you think they could possibly win by taking the route MS and Sony are taking?

~Cris

Doubt it. Frankly, I don't care if Nintendo is #1 or #100.

What I DO care is that they create awesome software. NES/SNES/N64/GCN hardware consoles had awesome software from Nintendo, though I personally feel that the GCN side of Nintendo software wasn't as good as the systems before it, but it was a good effort.
 

JavyOO7

Member
mrklaw said:
A lot of what Reggie says makes sense. But almost its entire premise rests on the assumption that Xbox 360 and PS3 are going for more bells, more whistles, more HD.

While that may be true for a lot of games, the extra power makes it at least possible to innovate. While Revolution eschews graphics technology, they are embracing controller technology to bring new gaming methods to consumers.

But PS3 and Xbox 360 are just as capable of extending gameplay options. PS2 has already shown that Sony is willing to try new things, with Eyetoy, the new Buzz! controller etc. PS3 will only expand those options.


So while I applaud Reggie and Nintendo's attempt to broaden the market, his argument is IMO over simplifying the situation with the competition

This is true. I can't disagree with that.

They should'nt turn a blind eye from the competition. It might bite them in the ass.

Regardless, as cynical as I am with the controller, I hope it lights a fire under Nintendo's ass and gets them started on creating innovative/revolutionary software.
 
Anyone think Nintendo is eyeing this market for the Revolution?





Maybe they feel they can dominate this market, as they are veiwed more and more as a "toy" company. Certainly they would be more capable of making good software.
 

GDGF

Soothsayer
I actually think that they're thinking more about the japanese arcade market. One of the reasons it still thrives is because it's home to odball games that cant really be duplicated in homes without alot of extra equipment (that would only be usefull for said game)

The revolution's controler seems like a pretty universal piece of equipment, and it would do well at duplicating such experiences.
 

JoDark

MS Viral Marketing
OK, in a nutshell...

Nintendo's opponents have too much money to spend making blockbusters, and the 360 and PS3 were VERY EXPENSIVE R&D ventures... Nintendo does not want to spend billions designing and prepping their next HW, AND they are right thinking that they would have a VERY hard time going at it with another GC.

So, they want to make indy films. They want to make the Vote for Pedro versions of entertainment, not the King Kong's, LoTR's, etc.

Sad imo, as I loved the Mario 64/ Zelda:OoT days of huge EAD teams making big beautiful games for us all to fall in love with.

However, also good, as they are going to go sideways. Make unique games with unique interface. Think an entire piece of HW designed for DDR, DK:JB, etc. I could have that as a third system more easily than a GC 2.

Of course, I just wish the damn thing was HD. Just cause I want to play some different stuff a few times a year DOES NOT mean I want it in crapola, out of date 480p.

Bottom line, based on what we have been told, the Rev will be the 3rd system I buy as of now. I have to have a 360 in just about 7 days; Unless Sony completely chokes (doubtful), I will have to have a PS3. The Rev? Enough talk Nintendo, time to show me WHY with GAMES, not words...
 
Top Bottom