Game sales are down. Endless sequels, lack of innovation, and a feeling of a lack of progress with the new console generation. "It's the same thing, but it looks a little better" What does a company that does not believe in the current industry trends do? Offer them all the fun from the past, with all the power of the future. Case in point: Xbox 360. In the months since launch some of the downloadable games have outsold some games sold in stores. However the Xbox 360 wasn't sold as a retro compatible console. It's quite the opposite. It's a modern supercomputer God in a box. So why are the retro games outselling some of the new ones? How is a $3 download outselling a game that cost millions to make and has high end graphics? Nostalgia and gameplay. People like what is familiar to them, and remember the feelings associated with those experiences. The young gamer doesn't want pac-man. However, a person in their 30's or 40's will drive a half hour to play pac-man on an old arcade machine in a bar. What one considers good gameplay is relative to one's prior gaming experience. Just ask a 2d fighting game fan about new fighting games. The distain is palpable. So what do you do when so many age groups have different opinions and tastes? Covering all the bases with retro gaming. It is evident to me this morning that nintendo is clever. Very, very clever. Retrogaming has now evolved from an afterthought (like arcade on live) to a key feature and selling point. Re-read that. With the Iwata's GDC announcement, emulation is one of the key selling points for the new console. Not a side note, but a major part of the console's design and appeal. The nintendo revolution is designed to be a retrogaming monster. Nintendo has already said it's not solely about graphics. It's about gameplay and gaming experiences. What better experience to offer the consumer than to have all their beloved games in one place? Dad has the retro and can play the son's new games. Mom has her poker or sudoku. Sister has nintendogs. There are also games designed for all of them to play together. They can all take part in each other's games if they want to, and no one is tied to one kind of gameplay. All on one machine. Powerful new gameplay of the future. A PS3 or XBOX 360 controller will always only be a controller. The new revolution controller interface is key. Suddenly the controller isn't a controller. It's a firehose. It's a fishing rod. It's a gun. It's a key. It's a sword. A baseball bat. A frying pan. In short, revolution is designed to appeal to every gamer on the planet. From day one, what do you get? Nintendo games Super Nintendo Games Nintendo 64 games Sega Genesis Games NEC Turbografx 16 games (PC engine) Gamecube Games (Resalable as budget titles for use on revolution) Revolution Games Online originals Cutting edge new games and everything old you've loved. Thousands of games you love on release day. Simple and easy to use as a remote control. Nowhere anywhere near $399. Affordable to the masses. Revolution. Have you really thought about the name? I didn't until today. This is not a company known for boasting or airs. This is a machine being called a revolution by the artisans of the gaming world. Could it be? Could it really be? Could gaming change fundamentally forever? A real honest to God revolution? So you either don't believe or hope. I choose to believe. My trust and hopes are placed on those who have created the game experiences that all others are judged by. Who refuse to follow the industry and set us free with devices like DS. I hope the revolution comes. I really do.
I haven't been excited for a new game console since Dreamcast and maybe DS. Excellent article, let's just hope the zillions of other people don't look down upon it "because the controller looks like a remote."
very well-put. Now we just have to pray to [insert what ever you belive in here] that they don't screw this up. thought with so much right how can it go wrong
Assembler, that article brought a tear to my eye,you've explained Nintendo's philosophy perfectly Ryan
I couldn't agree more as well. I do see the Revolution as a true gaming console that, this time, can appeal to all gamers. With Nintendo marketing their mascots in Hot Topic, it is "cool" to show off your gaming past. Whereas Sony and MS are battling over graphic power, features, lots of flash and fling, like Hollywood. Nintendo is now marketing themselves as the 'underdog' in the industry, the hardcore company rather than sell their console by how many polygons its going to push, megahertz, etc. Although I still doubt Nintendo will be more successful than Sony and MS, but I'm sure they'll break out even and clean like last time.
while its nice to see the large catalogue of games from previous generations, what are their goals on next-gen gaming? are we going to see another bunch of Game Cube-esq games with a bunch of SNES, MD and TurboGfx games as a time-waster between seldom third party releases?
Absolutely. The only layer I would add is the word on the dev kit being only $2000 (is that really confirmed?). So if Nintendo makes them easy to get and you combine that with: as a means of distribution for tiny developers and you've got the chances for something totally different from how video games have been done for the past 10 or 15 years at least. I only know that the Revolution is the first console since the Dreamcast that I've had any real interest in. Like you guys say, I guess I only hope it all comes out as cool as it could be. ...word is bondage...
Very eloquent. Makes me confident that Nintendo is a contender, whether they want to be or not. I could easily see the XBOX 360's market share slipping if they don't get more aggressive. I sure hope obscure, but good titles aren't overlooked from the Genesis/TG-16 front.
Sorry to be the one voice of dissent, but a load of old games, an innovative (but untested) controller design and a cheap price tag aren't necessarily going to make me rush out and buy a Revolution. Don't get me wrong, I'd much rather see Microsoft crash and burn then Nintendo, but I don't think Nintendo have done enough yet to convince me that they can play with the next-gen big boys.
Its the other way around for me, Sony and microsoft havent convinced me that they can play the next-gen big boys, but id like to understand your point of view on this. Is power all there is to have?
It's pretty well known that i'm not a big fan of nintendo these days, but i must agree with assembler. If nintendo can provide everything they've promised, they will truely change video games forever. It's revolution or bust for nintendo, and i think they're the only company who could pull it off. The question now lies with the consumers. Are they willing to buy what nintendo is offering?
It's not really a power issue, it's money. Let me explain what I mean. Both Sony and Microsoft have come into the console business late with a stack of cash to support them, Microsoft especially. Sony are currently King of the Gaming Hill and there's no obvious reason why they shouldn't continue to be so - they have a high-powered console, loads of developer support and the PS3 is coming off the back of the PS2, the world's most popular console. Microsoft has lost hundreds of millions on the Xbox, but they can afford to play the long game since they have virtually bottomless pockets. I think they'll still be playing second fiddle to Sony with the 360 though. Nintendo has carved itself a niche, surviving thanks to its last two consoles essentially being family-orientated - appealing to parents with low prices and to children with its kid-friendly games. They made 'em cheap, sold 'em cheap and thus made money. Nintendo has also been never seriously challenged for the handheld market until the PSP came along (but to be fair, Nintendo seems to winning that battle). The Revolution represents a step away from this tried-and-tested formula. They seem to be directly challenging Sony and Microsoft with their next-gen offering. Not only that, they appear to be doing so in a way that could seriously crash and burn. I can't help but think that they'll be alienating a lot of their consumers without gaining any new buyers. Innovation is all very well, but familarity is safer. Companies can't afford to mess up a console these days - look what happened to Sega. I'm with ProgrammingAce - it's make or break time for Nintendo and they're playing a risky, risky game.
It seems to me that if there's one thing Nintendo could be said *NOT* to be doing with the Revolution, that's it. Here's, let's create an articifially limited set of options for what Nintendo could do in the coming generation: 1)continue making kiddie games (I think this is a totally false description of what Nintendo does, but let's go with that description for the sake of argument) 2)actually try to directly compete with Sony and Microsoft game for game and spec for spec (and consequently, dollar for dollar) 3)introduce all the innovations they have with the Revolution and forge a new path From those options, which would actually prefer? Which do you think stands the best chance of success. In the long term. Granted, there's other conceivable options, but you don't really seem to be arguing that they should do something different from any of those, but that they should be more conservative and not rock the boat so much. ...word is bondage...
Oh boy! More retro gaming! All the time people they be asking me what's gonna drive the future of the industry, and all the time I be telling them it's retro games man! Super Mario Bros. never gets old! Is it any surprise that sales of new games are down? Hell, the innovative games that the Revolution promises will probly suffer from the same low sales as the new games on any other console. Seems like Virtual Console is just creating an ungodly amount of compitition for developers to contend with, because who wants to play New Idea 1 when you can retreat back to Same Old Stuff 5?
Well written post Assembler, but I already have all the forementioned consoles except for the Revolution. The controller is an excellent piece of design, just as the N64's was, but I want to see something really unique made for the console, not the franchises and rehashes that are the trade mark of Nintendo these days. It's curious Nintendo juxtapose old with new, emulator machine with something very interesting. The DS has shown there is a market for new ideas in the games industry. I just hope Nintendo make proper use of this innovation, rather than Mario, Zelda and Metroid with a magic wand.
Great article! I would really like to see Nintendo accomplish everything they are setting out to do. If they do I see them carving a new niche in the gaming market - built on the foundations of the serious gamers money. Then perhaps this new market Nintendo is aiming for will become the main, most fruitful market. Then we might just see a revolution in the industry. And utterly agreed that the fact that consoles are becoming PC. That is a very large turn off for me. Oddly the only thing that holds me back about the Rev is the controller(!) while I would like to see it open new doors, the reality is I spend 50 percent of my gaming life with a sanwa modded arcade stick in hand. Of course the rev will not replace that, but I don't see traditional fighters coming to the rev, without a serious add on for the controller (but who knows!). Maybe the rush of SFC fighters might give us a arcade stick - and then we will be cooking! With all that said, maybe I don't want my fav genres of 2D fighters and shooters on the rev. I think I would like to play some new genres, that only the rev will offer. As long as they do not neglect the RPG like with the GC I'm sure Nintendo can't go wrong with the game choice this time round. It is odd that Nintendo seem to be doing everything so right, without revealing the actual Revoluton games. I am so sold on the design, controller, retro games, and potential price that the actual games have less riding on them. You already know you are getting some great (retro) games with the machine that anything next gen is something of a bonus. I just hope the games match the ideology of the system.
