I'm going to agree with ProgrammingAce on this one. I was using more then 88mb's of ram back in the Pentium 2 days. I;m all for their ideas, but until I see some games that use them that's all they are: ideas. Hmmm...I own a 3DO, and got at different points most of the games people said were 'good' for it, and in all honesty, I didn't like a single one (Though Twister was funny what with the ability to play as a giant walking/talking pez despenser). CD-I looks to be another novelty system with no 'good' games (though i'd still like to play some of the 'bad' games like the Link/Zelda ones).
Nintendo burned a lot of developers with the gamecube. It became increasingly dificult for developers to make their money back on cube games. You started to see it with the N64, nintendo's draconian liscensing schemes pushed developers away. Those who remained had a hard time making a profit if a game wasn't an absolute blockbuster. A lot of companies took a cautious aproach to the gamecube when it released. As a result, there wern't as many "big name" titles and the system didn't sell as well as nintendo hoped. This led to more developers giving up on gamecube projects. Now, after a generation and a half where publishers would have to strugle to make a profit on nintendo hardware, we're starting to see the true damage of nintendo's 3rd place sales numbers. When you're spending $15 million on a 360 title and another $17 on a PS3 title, do you really want to risk spending $7 million on a nintendo title? The publishers are hesitant, especally when the look at the sales figures for their gamecube and later N64 titles. The accountants are screaming at the publishers to wait and see how the revolution sells. That may be the ultimate downfall of nintendo. The hardware is so unique that everyone is taking a "wait an see" aproach to the console. Which leaves nintendo as the only "big name" game producer at the begining of the console's life... which is exactly how the gamecube started... I wish nintendo the best. I think they may be able to change the face of gaming forever. I just worry that their past transgressions against 3rd party developers might finally catch up with them...
I wonder how long the Revolution controller will remain a Nintendo-only drawcard (despite it being patented to hell...). I fully expect that as we speak, Sony and MS are looking into the potential of such a controller for their respective systems. Then they'll have their processing power, plus the controller. All Nintendo may have to rely on then is the low selling price for the Revolution, and it's first-party games, something which hasn't worked in the past so well....
Yeah, but you were running Windows, for crying out loud. PROTIP: Don't run Windows on your Nintendo Revolution. Why would you even think to compare a video game system to a desktop PC? Are they similar? Do you wish they were? If so, stick with the Xbox (or just use your PC for gaming). Return Fire (+ Maps O' Death) and Star Control 2: The Ur-Quan Masters and Road Rash are all amazingly great games. I also like Need For Speed (much better than its sequels), Gex, Cannon Fodder, The Horde, Off World Interceptor and Theme Park. Of all those games, Star Control 2 is the only 3DO exclusive, but that doesn't much matter. Super Street Fighter 2 Turbo is fabulous on the 3DO (with SNES controller adapter). I also always wanted to try Pataank and Lucienne's Quest, both look cool. Then there's CPU Bach, which is really cool, though not a game. As for the CDi, I never owned one, either, so I can't say a whole lot, but I have played a few games on it and Zelda's Adventure is actually pretty good despite the fact that it gets lumped together with the other two Zelda games on the CDi as "those crappy Zelda games on the CDi" by people who've never played any of them. Kether was also pretty cool. Burn: Cycle and The Apprentice also always looked good to me, too, though I've never played them. Too bad Super Mario's Wacky Worlds never got completed, that looks great. I could name a couple systems that I don't think had any good games, actually, but I can guarantee right now that the Revolution won't be one of them. That's not me being a fanboy, it's just a fact. The Xbox360 and PS3 will have good games, too, even though I don't particularly want either of them at all. Tell it to MS-NBC, Mr. Industry Analyst. ...word is bondage...
3do does have good games and some decent ports. I can definately say that Wing commnader iv and space hulk were good ports from the PC at the time. 3D0 was by far the best console convertions at the time for these games. It was 3d0 price that killed it, not the games because people who could afford them at the time bought LOTS of games. I had a couple of friends with these systems when they came out and although the games haven't stood the test of time, people wanted them when they came out. Its just a bad and uninoformed opinion to compare the revolution to the 3d0. The ram argument is also very silly. Remember nintendo is not aiming for the HDTV customer. So they WILL NOT need that much ram to produce good looking games for standard TVs. As ProgrammingAce has said, nintedos problem is with the developers, NOT hardware prices, NOT RAM and NOT periphials On a side note the Naomi 2 Board only had 32 MByte 100Mhz SDRAM and the games look better than many console games out now. Its not the ram that makes games good or bad. As a consumer I am not really sure why nextgen consoles need the supercharged specs that we are seeing. The retail price of the hardware is a tad high and in the end I would just end up using it on my regular big screen TV. Whats the point? Yes on occation I hook up my consoles to a computer monitor with an SVGA cable, but thats not the majority of the time. HDTV is here but thats not the largest part of the casual video game player market. I think the 360 and ps3 are over kill and many consumers will not see that added benefit. I am not proclaiming a victory for nintnedo, but people will eventually vote with thier wallet
:lol: If I could run Windows on the Revolution I probably would just for kicks. Whoa, calm down. I was just pointing out how little money they were putting into the systems components, if that translates over to the cost to consumers all the more power to them. Though I do think it'll make it a little more difficult on any devs that want to make games with large expansive worlds. Lucienne's Quest is terrable, one of if not the worst rpg i've ever played, both from a gameplay and visual perspective. Every single spot in the game is covered by an invisible grid. Whenever you move your character they 'teleport' to the next grid space along with the camera which makes every step you take feel sporatic and unnatural. The battle system is like a traditional console turn based strategy game, but as simplified as can possible. Never said the Revolution won't have any good games, I believe it will (like all Nintendo systems), I just havn't seen any yet.
That's just moronic. You won't see people queueing up to by a NES will you? I looks to me like nintendo have admitted defeat.
How can you be talking about admitting defeat when the console hasn't even launched? What kind of logic is that?
Most any mall has a kiosk where people buy pirate NES clone hardware. I don't know if they queue up to buy them, but the sales seem god and I do know that I just sold two of them on eBay this week. However, this still misses what should be the point in a discussion about games. Why do you guys persist in seeing everything in terms of sales and how the industry feels about a system? That's just a sick perspective. The Dreamcast had horrible sales and 3rd party support, but remains the best video game console ever released. I could easily see the Revolution ending up the same way and in my opinion that would be absolutely great. Of course, maybe it won't be anywhwere near as great a system as the Dreamcast. I don't know and neither do any of you no matter how much you analyze the mood of the industry or extrapolate based on the system's specifications or compare the Revolution to other systems in history. ...word is bondage...
Specs don't matter. Games do. Until I see games, I won't judge the specs. Remember that the GC really pushed this generation to the edge with RE4 (on "underpowered" hardware). Also, remember how "underpowered" the DS is, yet it's absolutely decimating its competition in that gaming sphere thanks to its innovative gameplay and outreach toward people who would otherwise never be gamers (older people, especially). Still, I have no reason to believe that Nintendo can't be the "second system" that has mass appeal all across the board -- as the "second system" to people who buy the PS3 or X360, and as the primary system for those that can't afford the higher-end consoles (in price). This is also quite a smart move if you ask me, in that theoretically they could end up selling more units than either the X360 or PS3 combined due to this effect. Perhaps it won't work that way, but I have a strange feeling this is what the Big N is betting on. The price point of the dev hardware is low enough as well from what I've read, which also gives it an "in" with smaller development houses hoping to break into the industry -- a shrewd move in this day of $15,000 devkits. A resurgence in smaller independent dev houses would be very welcome news to me -- I have a distinct nostalgia for those kinds of groups from back in the 90s, as they tended to push the envelope in interesting ways more established houses couldn't (due to budgetary red tape bureaucracy or whatnot). So, given all this, I think Nintendo -- despite any quoted specs -- has a lot to gain from its position this time around. I'm rooting for them not as a fanboy, but as someone who wants to try something new, and likes where the DS has already gone with the new strategy.
Its becasue they are not truly understanding the difference between profitability vs popularity. I have yet to hear that nintendo is losing money on the gamecube. Yes they are not as successful as the PS2, but the profits are on the books and they are an inprovement over the N64, so I am sure investors are satisfied. Since INVESTORS are the most important part of coporations today all nintendo has to do is make sure that the revolution is more successful than the gamecube. I think that is an achieveable goal, so I expect nintendo to be around for many years to come. So before anybody starts bemoning about sega, realize that they had to deal with financial failures from 32x and saturn, back to back in the US. If they had not tried to sell in the US market SEGA would still be making systems today possibly even the dreamcast.
I imagine that the popularity of the GBA and DS has generated more than enough revenue to offset any losses brought about by the GameCube, if there are even any.
Just whene you think nintendo is gonna drop the megaton they stick to thier buisness plan and play it conservitive. Fine with me, i dont want nintendo screwing themselfs by trying to impress goofy 15 year old graphics whores or tards who think the more violence in a game the better. Mario, link and samus are to important. If nintendo ever does get back on top it wont be becuase of a 25.3 GHZ CPU and a high dollar media format. It will be becuase of 1 or 2 killer apps and some luck.
I've had this image for some time, not sure how accurate it is, but food for thought/research non-the-less:
yeah but we are missing one or 2 bars for the handheld consoles which are a way for nintendo to make good money and they are much higher then the nes sales
It's a trend for Nintendo Console none the less. If the revelution doesn't raise their console sales somewhat, they are in at least minor trouble.
Are these shipments or retail sales? The distinction is important to gauge finacial success as opposed to popularity amoung consumers. Also the older systems had lives beyond thier initial popularity run. The NES and SNES were redesigned and sold during the N64 era and the n64 was supported well into 2002 including cheaper redesigns. In regards to the n64 it had two more years of support than the gamecube thus far (6 years total). In the end the number gamecubes shipped will be very close to the n64 at a much lower overall manufacturing cost. I suppose my source could have been wrong. I thought the gamecube was well past the 20 million unit mark and was going to surpass the n64 in total units shipped.
I'd have thought a graph of yearly profits would be much more telling. Would be kind of interesting to see Sega's and Sony/Micorosft's videogame divisions' profit graphs side by side, too.
Let's not forget the NES reigned virtually unapposed in the home console market for a long time. Even, when the Gene-Drive came out, the NES was still holding tall. Now, the SNES had less sales because it just didn't have that head start as the NES did, coupled with Sega's "entrance" (for all intents and purposes, the SMS was nonexistant). The N64 had to share the market with the Saturn for a while, but ended up being eclipsed overall by the Playstation. If the Genesis was popular, then the PS1 was that times two (or three, or four,...). Anyhow, that's why Nintendo had even less marketshare for the N64. Now, the GameCube had to compete against TWO other systems and Sony pretty much reigned king of the hill with the newcomer Xbox from MS waiting to join the bastard sandwich that is the video game industry. Let's also not forget Ninty's mishandling of third-parties and choice of game storage media, and we can see just how the company has downed itself. But, THEY still are profiting -- don't call them Sega yet!
