Shigeru Myamoto Reiterates Revolution Not Competing with PS3

[fitbabits]

In an interview (http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/games/archives/2006/03/16/shigeru_miyamoto_interview.html#more) with Guardian Unlimited's Game Blog (http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/games/), Shigeru Myamoto talks about the PS3, Revolution, DS, 2005 game sales, etc.

Do you have any comments on the PlayStation 3 announcement?
Any announcement about PS3 will affect Nintendo. But we don't see it as a competition between the two consoles, although the customers always do. It depends on what expectations people have of the PS3 and Revolution. Sony has taken a long time to create their machine but it is obvious that the direction we (Nintendo) are taking is different to the PS3.
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a390/fitbabits/miyamoto_400x259.jpg

This is a man who knows what he wants the Revolution to be and is undeterreed by media hype.

[bapenguin]

I want a game for the Revolution called Beatdown. All you do is beat up random people, animals and objects with a giant stick, or bat, or something. I could do that all day. :)

[Doctor Worm]

Hands down, best pic of Miyamoto I've seen.

"Competing with Sony? Shorely shome mishtake!"

[Heretic Machine]

Just because you take a different approach doesn't mean you're not in a competition. If Nintendo honestly believes that they aren't competing with Sony and Microsoft, then they are in a lot of fucking trouble.

[NoName]

Just because you take a different approach doesn't mean you're not in a competition. If Nintendo honestly believes that they aren't competing with Sony and Microsoft, then they are in a lot of fucking trouble.
Right, because not worrying about the competition and instead focusing on amazing gameplay and reasonable prices is a bad business model O.o.

No uber graphics on the revolution means they're doomed, right?

/sarcasam

[Paltry]

Yes they are competing, but in the same way that toyota is competing with sikorsky. These companies both may make vehicles for people to get from point a to point b, but they go about it in completely different ways. Nintendo is offering something new with the revolution i think. Yes its a video game system but if they manage to live up to their hype theyll be creating a new way we play our games, one as different as a helicopter is from an econobox.

[Mr.Green]

I want a game for the Revolution called Beatdown. All you do is beat up random people, animals and objects with a giant stick, or bat, or something. I could do that all day. :)
How about cats?

Edit: thought I was replying to fitbabits. duh. Let's move on

[silv]

I really don't think the Revolution will "create a new way to play games". Will it have some great first party titles? Absolutely. Will it have gimmicky control schemes? Absolutely.

Give me great core functionality/gameplay and not tidbits thrown in here and there for the alternate control schemes of the month.

[Heretic Machine]

I swear... PR tag lines from Nintendo really seem to catch on with some people. This whole "we don't compete with other game companies" thing is about as legit as the Emotion Engine. The DS -is- in direct competition with the PSP, when people go looking for a handheld gaming system those are their choices. Most will get one OR the other. That means it's a competition. The same will hold true for the Revolution, the PS3, and the 360.

No uber graphics on the revolution means they're doomed, right?

So, because I don't buy into their PR, I'm a Nintendo-hater? Whatever, you obviously don't read my posts.

[Schnoogs]

Right, because not worrying about the competition and instead focusing on amazing gameplay and reasonable prices is a bad business model O.o.

No uber graphics on the revolution means they're doomed, right?

/sarcasam


The guy you responded to is correct. Nintendo needs to understand that many customers will need to make a decision as to where their money goes.

I cant justify both a PS3 and a Rev so whether Nintendo is aware of this or not they could potentially lose a customer because of the mere existance of the PS3.

A lot of screaming kids are gonna beg their parents for a console come Xmas and Nintendo may only get a share of the sales because parents dont want to buy both. Parents dont see gameplay they see dollar signs and name recognition. If little Johnie wants a PS3 first and then later on asks for a Revolution Johnies parents might flip out and having to throw down cash again.

You have to consider your comptetition because solely relying on your "innovation" isnt enough.

[Watership]

Playstation doesn't think it's in competition with xbox. Nintendo doesn't think it's in competition with Playstation.

This sort of talk is rhetoric is PR. Nintendo is guilty of it just as sony is.

[Evil Avatar]

Just give me an Animal Crossing game not designed for 8 year olds and I'll be happy. Oh, and more Pikmin.

[Zaro]

I don't care if they are competing or not, i want to play with.
That's all.

[Kamalot]

Nintendo isn't competing with the Playstation cause the Revolution is a games machine.

It isn't a Bluray player, photo viewer, movie-trailer-downloader, online music store client, internet voicemail system, webcam, it only plays games.

Yes, the control scheme is different, allowing new types of games, but old-style games can be played with the WaveBird controller shell and retro games can be downloaded. The entire focus of the Revolution is about playing games, and playing is fun.

It looks like the competition has decided to add lots of features that have nothing to do with games in order to attract people with non-gaming interests. Nintendo is, instead, focusing on the games themselves to make them more fun.

How this could be anything but good news?

Think about MP3 players. There is a specific brand of MP3 players that aren't loaded with extra features, like voice recorders, FM tuners, OGG playback, gapless playback, etc. These little white players focus on being easy to use and fun, simple by design but focused. Success.

Revolution applies the same philosophy to games. Make the device simple, focused, fun. Don't bloat with extra features that offer little-to-no enhancement to gameplay. If it isn't used for games, it isn't in the system.

Yes, the Revolution only plays games.

It will play new types of games that you can't imagine today. It will let you feel games in new ways. It will be fun.

Yes, the Revolution only plays games, and that is wonderful news for gamers.

[fitbabits]

How about cats?

Edit: thought I was replying to fitbabits. duh. Let's move on
You bastard. I'll find where you live and feed you my foot. :rolleyes:

[Mr.Green]

I really don't think the Revolution will "create a new way to play games". Will it have some great first party titles? Absolutely. Will it have gimmicky control schemes? Absolutely.

Give me great core functionality/gameplay and not tidbits thrown in here and there for the alternate control schemes of the month.
It's too soon to tell Silv. The reality probably lies somewhere between your take on it and the fanboys who think Nintendo has the exclusivity on fun and innovation.

It might, and I really hope it does, significantly improve the gaming experience but it also might be something really fun for 20 minutes like the eye toy. I think it will end up beeing a perfect living room mouse with a third dimension that could be used to add neat functions. That would still be pretty awesome as far as I'm concerned, except that I fear the FPS games that would benefit the most from this controler will be on the other consoles, and in the end I'll be playing games on the revolution that I wish would have the 360's horsepower and games on the 360 that I wish would have the rev's controls.

Can't we have it all god damnit?

[ruprect]

Even though Nintendo for me is kind of side-dish as far as consoles/gaming goes, I'm always happy to see what they are doing, and eventually pick up their stuff . . . for their first-party games of course.

Also, Myamoto is one of the coolest people on earth.

[Opty]

Just give me an Animal Crossing game not designed for 8 year olds and I'll be happy. Oh, and more Pikmin.
Grand Theft Animal Crossing? I'd sure love that! I mean, I hate Animal Crossing as it is right now because it's designed to appeal to everyone rather than a small subset of the gaming subculture. Damn that Nintendo and their "kiddy" games.

[Abednigo]

Will it have gimmicky control schemes? Absolutely.



Weren't people saying that about the DS touch screen? The analog stick on the N64 controller? The D-Pad on the NES controller? The shoulder buttons on the SNES controller? Come on, Nintendo has revolutionized the way we play our games in every generation with it's controllers (except maybe the GC). There wouldn't be a Dual Shock if it wasn't for Nintendo.

This isn't fanboy talk. Those are just facts that you can read in any videogame website or magazine.

[Mr.Green]

You bastard. I'll find where you live and feed you my foot. :rolleyes:
Oh yeah? Well I'll PM you my address, nerd! ;)

I'm just teasing you btw. I don't hate cats. In fact, I think they're delicious.

[Kamalot]

Just give me an Animal Crossing game not designed for 8 year olds and I'll be happy. Oh, and more Pikmin.
So, you want Animal Crossing designed for 13 year olds, where they make fart jokes and think saying the word 'titty' is the highlight of humor?

[jonat3]

Miyamoto realizes that they are still seen as competitors. He said it himself. And i also agree that they still are competitors. But only where the current gamers are concerned. Depending on the success of their blue ocean strategy, they may not even be considered competitors in the future, because Nintendo would have reached to a demographic beyond what we have now.

Basically, if their blue ocean strategy only has minimal effect, they will still be competitors. Should it greatly succeed however, i think you can say then that they are no longer competitors.

[bapenguin]

Nintendo isn't competing with the Playstation cause the Revolution is a games machine.

It isn't a Bluray player, photo viewer, movie-trailer-downloader, online music store client, internet voicemail system, webcam, it only plays games.

Yes, the control scheme is different, allowing new types of games, but old-style games can be played with the WaveBird controller shell and retro games can be downloaded. The entire focus of the Revolution is about playing games, and playing is fun.

It looks like the competition has decided to add lots of features that have nothing to do with games in order to attract people with non-gaming interests. Nintendo is, instead, focusing on the games themselves to make them more fun.


We know that. The consumer doesn't know that. It's all about branding. You bring it up exactly with the iPod thing. People aren't buying iPods because they offer the best or most features, they are buying it because it's "cool" it's the Apple thing.

Sony has a HUGE advantage with the Playstation brand, that alone is selling the console before people even know what it does they want one.

Nintendo is going to grab all of the nostalgia crowd just fine. It may even grab some of the younger kids easily. But other than that it's going to have a hard time marketing this system. I really think that is Nintendo's biggest hurdle is getting the word out there on this, showing what it can do to the American Audience.

Honestly, look at the Revolution launch video showing people acting silly together in front of the TV playing stuff. You think that's gonna fly with an American audience? Ain't. Gonna. Happen.

[jonat3]

We know that. The consumer doesn't know that. It's all about branding. You bring it up exactly with the iPod thing. People aren't buying iPods because they offer the best or most features, they are buying it because it's "cool" it's the Apple thing.

Sony has a HUGE advantage with the Playstation brand, that alone is selling the console before people even know what it does they want one.

Nintendo is going to grab all of the nostalgia crowd just fine. It may even grab some of the younger kids easily. But other than that it's going to have a hard time marketing this system. I really think that is Nintendo's biggest hurdle is getting the word out there on this, showing what it can do to the American Audience.

Honestly, look at the Revolution launch video showing people acting silly together in front of the TV playing stuff. You think that's gonna fly with an American audience? Ain't. Gonna. Happen.

Branding is only important where current gamers are concerned. But i agree. If Nintendo wants to reach a demographic beyond the one we have now, marketing will be very important. People who didn't even consider consoles should be tempted to buy the Revolution with the right marketing, but i wonder how Nintendo will get over this hurdle.

[Opty]

Hands down, best pic of Miyamoto I've seen.

"Competing with Sony? Shorely shome mishtake!"

Here's a better one (http://img2.kult-mag.com/photos/00/00/67/12/ME0000671258_2.jpg) from here (http://www.gamekult.com/tout/actus/image.html?carticle=A0000047279)

[Megalith]

Revolution fails unless that picture of Miyamoto is stamped on every box.

[kurr]

Heh. You said titty.

Sorry, just being an ass. :)

In any case, Nintendo seems, to me, to make the second console. Most of us will probably be getting either an XB360 or a PS3. I doubt the revo is going to cost as much. Probably 199 at release, and probably down to 150 to 99, just like the GC. In that case, I'll definitely be getting a Revo to go along with my other console. Last time it was a PS2. This time it might be an XB360. I still have yet to see a single goddamned game for either next gen console that makes me go "Oh shit, son! I better get me a (insert console here)!" But, the Revo's controller, on the other hand, makes me very curious. A sword fighting zelda game, where I can swing the sword around? Bitchin'!

[Mr.Green]

Branding is only important where current gamers are concerned. But i agree. If Nintendo wants to reach a demographic beyond the one we have now, marketing will be very important. People who didn't even consider consoles should be tempted to buy the Revolution with the right marketing, but i wonder how Nintendo will get over this hurdle.
Shigueru, is that you? :)

With the right marketing, neophytes should be tempted to buy any console don't you think? Why would the revolution be more tempting? Low price? Easier games?

Don't get me wrong, I'll get one on day one but some of the Nintendo enthusiasts have a condescending attitude that bothers me at times. As if more powerful hardware and fun games were mutually exclusive.

[Stormwatcher]

Oh, the GC had its controller advance too: the wavebird.
And yeah, those who accuse the freehand controller of being a gimmick, just take the DS for a spin, with Meteos, Ouendan and Nintendogs. It is the same thing, only 2D.
And it is not AT ALL a gimmicky novelty. It's shit hot.

[Heretic Machine]

Nintendo isn't competing with the Playstation cause the Revolution is a games machine.

It isn't a Bluray player, photo viewer, movie-trailer-downloader, online music store client, internet voicemail system, webcam, it only plays games.

If my DVD player can display JPG slideshows, does that mean that it's not a DVD player? If my TV has an HDMI port on the back, and my video card can output to it, does that mean my TV is actually a computer monitor? My Sega CD could play music CD's, does that mean that it wasn't a game machine?

Extra features are just that, extra features. The PS3 is a machine for playing games, the PSP is a machine for playing games. Just because they want to market themselves by saying that they can also function as these other devices (thus, you don't have to buy those other devices) doesn't mean that it's not still a game machine.

Nintendo fanboys seem to think that fewer features are better, but here is a news flash for you: People WANT more features. Now yes, you and me can see that these extra features can come at the cost of gameplay, but that isn't how it's marketed. That's not how average consumers see it. Thus, it might as well not be true.

Now I'm with Nintendo, I'm buying a Revolution this year instead of a PS3. But I don't have to stick my head up my ass to blind myself from the reality of the situation.

[RMan]

We know that. The consumer doesn't know that. It's all about branding. You bring it up exactly with the iPod thing. People aren't buying iPods because they offer the best or most features, they are buying it because it's "cool" it's the Apple thing.
Wait, are you arguing that Apple has/had a better street cred with potential mp3 buying public than Nintendo has with the video game buying public? Granted, Apple is benefiting from the media/popularity circle-jerk a great deal, but it seems to me Nintendo has a better chance than Apple did with their product. I mean, if it gets the nostalgia crowd, the kiddies, what specific demographic doesn’t see Nintendo as a plenty strong enough brand?
Honestly, look at the Revolution launch video showing people acting silly together in front of the TV playing stuff. You think that's gonna fly with an American audience? Ain't. Gonna. Happen.
Well, granted, but I also don’t get excited about car wax or the newest pop-tart flavor as people in commercials, it’s called advertising and they tend to exaggerate. I’m sure the same types of arguments were leveled against DDR or anything else that strayed outside the current grove/rut the market was in.

As far as them not competing against Sony/MS, it’s of course true, and of course not. Sony and MS are producing pretty much the same things, but trying to outdo eachother’s features in terms of quality. Nintendo is not, they are going after a different market, offering at least one clearly different feature, in the same way that a truck goes after a different market than a car (this is very similar, really, a car generally outperforms a truck in every way, except it can’t carry much, making it completely lame if carrying stuff is a priority). It’s perfectly logical to say that a car doesn’t compete with a truck, and perfectly logical to say it does, it depends on how you define “compete”.

[Abednigo]

Here's a better one (http://img2.kult-mag.com/photos/00/00/67/12/ME0000671258_2.jpg) from here (http://www.gamekult.com/tout/actus/image.html?carticle=A0000047279)

Hands down, Miyamoto is the coolest guy in the industry.

[Heretic Machine]

Well, granted, but I also don’t get excited about car wax or the newest pop-tart flavor as people in commercials

Keep the hot, hot, and the cool, cool. (http://www.retrojunk.com/details_commercial/43/)

[RMan]

Nintendo fanboys seem to think that fewer features are better, but here is a news flash for you: People WANT more features.
Actually, I see this as quite the opposite, the Revolution won me over because of features, not in spite of them.
But I don't have to stick my head up my ass to blind myself from the reality of the situation.
BTW, they aren’t either, it’s just a matter of perspective. I could argue that a DVD player competes with a PS2 because the purchase of one may result in the other not being purchased. For me the Revolution diverges from the PS3 and 360 enough in terms of features and market strategies to be perfectly reasonable to say it doesn’t compete, just because it will share shelfspace close to the other two isn’t significant to me.

[Schnoogs]

Some of you are over analysing this...simply put any product sold on the market is going to be influenced by factors other than its quality.

Timing, cost, brand loyalty, marketing, and "chic" factor are just a few things that might affect sales.

Stating that such and such is not your competitor doesnt somehow remove these other factors. They wish it was that easy.

[bapenguin]

Wait, are you arguing that Apple has/had a better street cred with potential mp3 buying public than Nintendo has with the video game buying public? Granted, Apple is benefiting from the media/popularity circle-jerk a great deal, but it seems to me Nintendo has a better chance than Apple did with their product. I mean, if it gets the nostalgia crowd, the kiddies, what specific demographic doesn’t see Nintendo as a plenty strong enough brand?

Yes, that's exactly it. Nintendo's street cred is the "kiddie system." As much as fans of the system hate to hear it, that's exactly what it's branded as. Playstation is the cool system to have. Nintendo is already missing the "Madden" gamer. And they'll miss them this time around, though they really don't care.

What Nintendo wants to capture though, I'm not sure if it involves street cred or not as you put it. Again, the trick is going to be to market it correctly.

[Ailer]

Nintendo's street cred is the "kiddie system."

To this day I don't understand this perception. MGS:TS is not a kiddie game. Resident Evil 4 is not a kiddie game. Hell, even fire emblem is not a kiddie game. These are some very mature, and in some cases, hard as shit games. I know some mid 20 gamer types who simply couldn't play Mario Sunshine because they found it so damn hard. You know, the kind who think that Halo is the best game ever.

Oh and didn't the gamecube have the depressable shoulder buttons? It came out first (counting the japanese date as opposed to the american one). That would mean the gamecube had the first truly pressure sensitive controller (Don't try and tell me the ps2 had that, the xbox being pressure sensitive is a load of crap).

[Kamalot]

If my DVD player can display JPG slideshows, does that mean that it's not a DVD player? If my TV has an HDMI port on the back, and my video card can output to it, does that mean my TV is actually a computer monitor? My Sega CD could play music CD's, does that mean that it wasn't a game machine?The examples you give are good ones. I would label those as Benefits. Your DVD player already has the ability to read files off of a disc and decode JPGs/MPGS, that's one of the basic functions. It is simply spun into a JPG viewer, slightly differing the basic function. TVs need to have input to display images, that's a basic function. The benefit is you can also display images from your PC as well. Sega CD, plays CDs cause that's its basic function.

Extra features come in the form of features that are useless or nearly useless to gameplay. Bluray isn't necessary to make a great game system. Take a look at the feature list for the PS3. You can download movies and music from our online store! You can use it as a Tivo! It will age your video into high definition! It will play new, bluray movies! It has Linux! How much of that is core to the functioning of a game system? Sony even admits the PS3 isn't a game system any more.

I'll agree with Sony on that point. The PS3 isn't a game system any more. It is a jumble of features, a directionless box that happens to play some games. The games are secondary to loading your living room with other channels to feed the Sony machine; bluray discs, online music, memory sticks. A Trojan Horse indeed.

Nintendo makes games, first and foremost. You can bet the games are going to rock. Would the entire company bet its long history of game development, and its future, on something that is only going to have 15-min gimmicks? Take a look at the history of Nintendo, at their games, at their passion for making games.

I am a gamer. I care about games first.

Yes, the Revolution only plays games.

[Abednigo]

To this day I don't understand this perception. MGS:TS is not a kiddie game. Resident Evil 4 is not a kiddie game. Hell, even fire emblem is not a kiddie game. These are some very mature, and in some cases, hard as shit games. I know some mid 20 gamer types who simply couldn't play Mario Sunshine because they found it so damn hard. You know, the kind who think that Halo is the best game ever.

Oh and didn't the gamecube have the depressable shoulder buttons? It came out first (counting the japanese date as opposed to the american one). That would mean the gamecube had the first truly pressure sensitive controller (Don't try and tell me the ps2 had that, the xbox being pressure sensitive is a load of crap).

As much money as Nintendo makes from Pokemon (and how many Pokemon games and toys they put out), I think that's the reason they have that label from the so called "hardcore" gamers.

[Kamalot]

Nintendo is already missing the "Madden" gamer. And they'll miss them this time around, though they really don't care.

I'm sure I'll take heat for this, but here goes...

The "Madden" gamer is there to play football, not games. The Gran Turismo gamer is there to play with cars, not games. Yes, Nintendo won't miss these people. Nintendo is aimed at people who want to play games, above all else.

Madden is football first, game second. It is supposed to look and sound like the real thing, but you can play with it. Gran Turismo is supposed to be like real cars, that you can play with. Cars first, gameplay second.

Nintendo seems to be focused on game first, realism comes way down the list.

I respect that.

[Cubfan]

Oh, the GC had its controller advance too: the wavebird.
And yeah, those who accuse the freehand controller of being a gimmick, just take the DS for a spin, with Meteos, Ouendan and Nintendogs. It is the same thing, only 2D.
And it is not AT ALL a gimmicky novelty. It's shit hot.

I own and love the DS but would have to admit that the touchscreen is either poorly implemented or completely unecessary in the vast majority of games I've played.

I just finished Princess Peach, and the touchscreen element would have been better implemented via buttons. Probably wouldn't have made it any less mediocre a game though.

[Mason]

Right, because not worrying about the competition and instead focusing on amazing gameplay and reasonable prices is a bad business model O.o.

No uber graphics on the revolution means they're doomed, right?

/sarcasam
Perigon is right here, man. Nintendo is competing for gaming dollars and consumer attention, same as the other companies, but they have adopted a wildly-successful PR line intended to dissuade people from focusing on the shortcomings of the Revolution.

And yes, if it is 2/3 of the 360's price and less than 2/3 of its hardware capability (adjusted for bundled controller cost), that is a shortcoming. Making games, even graphically simple ones, is cheaper and faster on more powerful hardware. Every programmer in the world will tell you that there's never a case where less hardware is better. Lesser hardware specs will always limit gameplay possibilities, not multiply them.

For example, HL couldn't have been made as a graphically simpler version of HL2, with the exact same gameplay. Why? Because processor speeds only made the real-time simulation of complex physics interactions feasible to implement in an interesting way in the past few years. Writing that off as meaningless graphics whoring is nonsense, the physics-based gameplay was innovative and amazing, and it was enabled by powerful modern CPUs.

Trying to put a semantic division between technology and innovation is, as mentioned, nothing more than PR. Really high-quality PR which has persuaded many thinking gamers, but in the end it is still fairly divorced from the realities of development.

[Kamalot]

if it is 2/3 of the 360's price and less than 2/3 of its hardware capability (adjusted for bundled controller cost), that is a shortcoming.Does anyone believe the Revolution will be less than 2/3 as capable as the Xbox 360?

[Mason]

Does anyone believe the Revolution will be less than 2/3 as capable as the Xbox 360?
No confirmed specs in either direction at this point. However, do you really think that when the thrust of their marketing strategy is justifying uncompetitive hardware, they'll actually ship competitive hardware?

You've got 1 or 2 PPC core against 3, you've got a rumored 88MB 1T-SRAM and 16MB D-RAM against 512MB GDDR3 RAM, 1080i against 480p. Make up whatever ratio for that you like.

[bapenguin]

I'm sure I'll take heat for this, but here goes...

The "Madden" gamer is there to play football, not games. The Gran Turismo gamer is there to play with cars, not games. Yes, Nintendo won't miss these people. Nintendo is aimed at people who want to play games, above all else.

Madden is football first, game second. It is supposed to look and sound like the real thing, but you can play with it. Gran Turismo is supposed to be like real cars, that you can play with. Cars first, gameplay second.

Nintendo seems to be focused on game first, realism comes way down the list.

I respect that.

The Madden gamer and GT gamer are just as much gamers as you an me. They just have a higher tolerance for things. They are the largest current market for games.

Nintendo is trying to increase this market even further by bringing in a genre of unique style games. Something different from the norm. If it hits as big as they hope, and all these new gamers come to their system, eventually the same thing is going to happen. Us, the hardcore gamers, will get tired of it. it'll be mediocore and washed out. Repetitive and done before and we'll move on to whatever is next. It's a cycle that always happens.

[RMan]

Yes, that's exactly it. Nintendo's street cred is the "kiddie system." As much as fans of the system hate to hear it, that's exactly what it's branded as.
That's just not true. The gamecube does lean more that way than the PS2 and XBox, certainly, but Nintendo has sold RE4 as well as their "kiddie" titles, and PS2 sold many copies of Sly Cooper, Ratchet & Clank, and other “kiddie” titles along with GTA3. Only the rigid hard-core gamer sees things as the black and white “one does only this, the other does only that, and that’s how it’ll always be” kind of thing you propose, and fortunately they’ll likely buy all three systems anyway.

Honestly, in the end, I’m not sure it even matters, if the Revolution was perceived as a “kiddie” system, how would that be any different than the DS? I’m sure they’d be perfectly happy with that type of “failure” among the cool gamer crowd. What we’re talking about here is if they’ll be blown off because of their credibility, and the plain and simple truth is they’re overall strong now, only had one clear failure in the Gamecube, and are otherwise a legend in gaming. How that doesn’t trump Apple’s previous mp3 credibility before the ipod is beyond me, but you stick to that if you like.
Playstation is the cool system to have.
Yea, but before this generation, the N64 was the cool system to have (at least at release). All three players have enough credibility to make their systems fly, the idea that things won’t change just because that’s the way it is now is very short-sighted and certainly contradictory to even very recent history.

[Kamalot]

The Madden gamer and GT gamer are just as much gamers as you an me. They just have a higher tolerance for things. They are the largest current market for games.
I'm not saying they aren't gamers, they have different priorities.

Football First - Gameplay Second.
Automobile Porn First - Gameplay Second.

I play to play. Many do. Perhaps we are in the minority over people who are more interested in football and cars. That's okay. One isn't better than another, just different. Nintendo seems to focus on people who want gameplay over real-world activites turned into games.

[bapenguin]

I'm not saying they aren't gamers, they have different priorities.

Football First - Gameplay Second.
Automobile Porn First - Gameplay Second.

I play to play. Many do. Perhaps we are in the minority over people who are more interested in football and cars. That's okay. One isn't better than another, just different. Nintendo seems to focus on people who want gameplay over real-world activites turned into games.

Simulations are games too. Just because they are real and tangible doesn't make it any less. That's the point of them, just because you don't see the fun in that doesn't mean they are any less games. Look at flight simulators on PC for the past 10-15 years.

[RMan]

Stating that such and such is not your competitor doesnt somehow remove these other factors. They wish it was that easy.
Again, it depends on where you draw the line. By your logic I can also say that those atari 2600 or SNES preloaded console systems compete with the 360. Possibly I can say that the PSP does, maybe a DVD player, perhaps a set of golf clubs, even a bag of crotons. All of these can compete for my money, and it’s perfectly fair to say that none of them are competing with each other.

[bapenguin]

That's just not true. The gamecube does lean more that way than the PS2 and XBox, certainly, but Nintendo has sold RE4 as well as their "kiddie" titles, and PS2 sold many copies of Sly Cooper, Ratchet & Clank, and other “kiddie” titles along with GTA3. Only the rigid hard-core gamer sees things as the black and white “one does only this, the other does only that, and that’s how it’ll always be” kind of thing you propose, and fortunately they’ll likely buy all three systems anyway.

Yea, but before this generation, the N64 was the cool system to have (at least at release). All three players have enough credibility to make their systems fly, the idea that things won’t change just because that’s the way it is now is very short-sighted and certainly contradictory to even very recent history.

I don't argue the Gamecube has "edgey" titles. But to the general public it is seen as a kid system. Go ask any parents, say the word Nintendo and then say the word Playstation. Ask them what they associate with it.

N64 competed with PS1 and the PS1 spanked the N64 bigtime. It wasn't the cool system, PS1 was.

Look i'm not saying or picking sides in anything here. I know Nintendo isn't a kiddie system. I'm not saying the PS is better than any Nintendo system, or vice versa. I'm simply saying that in the actual consumer market this is how things are. Ask any of the various retail people on this site, they'll tell you. That is what you see, I used to see it too when I worked retail.

[RMan]

Go ask any parents, say the word Nintendo and then say the word Playstation. Ask them what they associate with it.
But the question is which company could product a unique system and they'd be willing to buy it, I think the answer would be both. Clearly the Nintendo would be the system of choice for parents buying for their kids; just as Pepsi generally grabs a younger demographic, but Coke or Pepsi can sell me a new soft drink.
N64 competed with PS1 and the PS1 spanked the N64 bigtime. It wasn't the cool system, PS1 was.
Not at it's release, and at every point before it. It was assumed that Sony, even with their electronics dominance, couldn't just walk in and compete with Nintendo, much like the notions about Sony's lock on this generation (or more accurately, Nintendo’s inability to get back in the game).
I'm simply saying that in the actual consumer market this is how things are. Ask any of the various retail people on this site, they'll tell you. That is what you see, I used to see it too when I worked retail.
I’m not sure what “things are” that you’re talking about now, the part about Nintendo making kiddie games, or that they can’t make the Revolution fly because of credibility. Hardcore gamers and most retail clerks alike (esp. the “all knowing” gamer retail clerk) generally pigeonhole products based on their ability to capture existing markets, and are seldom forward thinking. I’m sure these same people you were talking about almost invariably railed on the DS, perhaps even the ipod, and if they were around long enough, likely thought the N64 would dominate before it’s release (most industry people did at the time). This system, because of it’s uniqueness, simply doesn’t fit the mold of other existing products and therefore it’s judged harshly among more rigid folk. Personally, like the ipod, I think the market is ripe for the type for the Revolution, but time will tell.

[Kamalot]

Simulations are games too. Just because they are real and tangible doesn't make it any less. That's the point of them, just because you don't see the fun in that doesn't mean they are any less games. Look at flight simulators on PC for the past 10-15 years.
Simulations are games. Simulations can be fun too. The goal of a simulation is not to be fun, but rather to simulate something else. Perhaps by extension there is fun to be had being able to play with a simulated airplane, car, football team or puppy, but the goal of a simulation is, by its very nature, to simulate something else.

What about games that bend the rules of reality and blur realism in order to put gameplay and FUN at the top of the priority list? The Burnout series has one this quite well, providing accessible controls, fast action, plausible environments and vehicles, all with the focus being on the sense of speed. The Mario games throw reality out the window in order to focus on game play. Geometry Wars and Rez don’t even approach anything tangible, instead focusing on the pure game experience. Prince Of Persia: Sands of Time isn't realistic by any stretch of the imagination, but it provides a plausible and believable world in which to play.

Many ‘gamers’ approach gaming as an extension of other activities or media. Movie games, Sports games, comic book games. I, like many, am interested in playing a good game first. A game that has been built from the ground up to be fun, not a movie license or interest area with a ‘game’ slapped on it.

[DaedalusFolly]

Keep the hot, hot, and the cool, cool. (http://www.retrojunk.com/details_commercial/43/)

Wow, I didnt remember Jason Alexander being "that guy" from the McDLT commercial. Probably because he had hair back then... and was thin.

[Zeal]

Nintendo doesn't really have a choice whether they'll be competing or not. The only way not to compete with Sony and Microsoft is to pull their console from the market.

[Tohoya]

I really don't think the Revolution will "create a new way to play games". Will it have some great first party titles? Absolutely. Will it have gimmicky control schemes? Absolutely.

Give me great core functionality/gameplay and not tidbits thrown in here and there for the alternate control schemes of the month.

The success of the different features of the Nintendo DS makes your prediction suprious at best.

[Tohoya]

We know that. The consumer doesn't know that. It's all about branding. You bring it up exactly with the iPod thing. People aren't buying iPods because they offer the best or most features, they are buying it because it's "cool" it's the Apple thing.

Sony has a HUGE advantage with the Playstation brand, that alone is selling the console before people even know what it does they want one.

Nintendo is going to grab all of the nostalgia crowd just fine. It may even grab some of the younger kids easily. But other than that it's going to have a hard time marketing this system. I really think that is Nintendo's biggest hurdle is getting the word out there on this, showing what it can do to the American Audience.

Honestly, look at the Revolution launch video showing people acting silly together in front of the TV playing stuff. You think that's gonna fly with an American audience? Ain't. Gonna. Happen.

I honestly think that's what Nintendo's trying to do. They're trying to buck the "kiddie game" label by becoming the wildly creative stuff. In essenece, I think they're trying to become the mac of the video gaming industry.

[xcalibur]

http://www.joystiq.com/2006/03/08/nintendo-revolution-prediction-second-console-of-choice/
http://www.joystiq.com/2006/01/23/poll-results-next-gen-combo-platters/

The numbers gathered in this poll support that assumption, with Nintendo's Revolution commanding a staggering 89% of the gamers that will be purchasing multiple systems, versus 64% for the Xbox 360 and 67% for the PS3.

The simple fact is the elevated pricepoints of the 360 and PS3 are going to force most buyers to choose one or the other. The low price point of the Rev. positions it perfectly to fill the bill as the second console in most homes. I am a hard-core gamer and game developer and I have not even considered buying a 360 yet. By the time you buy the system, peripherals, and a few games, you are easily talking $700 or more. Being a husband and soon-to-be father, that is simply too much money to be spending for a game system.

I think alot of kids are going to be hard-pressed to convince their parents to shell out that kind of money for a game console. The Rev. will be the low-cost alternative that still has alot of fun, cool games to play.


-X

[Jazzercide]

Regardless if they're competing or not, they mean to sell as many systems as possible. It doesn't mean they'll be happy getting gamecube numbers again.

Also, Gamecube WAS them competing on power, and PS2 the least powerful system won! If graphics mattered or didn't, now we're talking about the difference in graphics between 3 systems that are all more powerful than xbox. What I'm saying is, having that controller or not is a much greater difference in system capabilities than the processor speed.

[Zeal]

I think alot of kids are going to be hard-pressed to convince their parents to shell out that kind of money for a game console. The Rev. will be the low-cost alternative that still has alot of fun, cool games to play.

To be honest, the 360 will probably be the alternative choice for most people. First choice being the PS3, of course.

In many ways, Revolution really is in its own market.

[xcalibur]

Regardless if they're competing or not, they mean to sell as many systems as possible. It doesn't mean they'll be happy getting gamecube numbers again.

Interesting factoid: Nintendo actually made the most money out of the last generation of consoles/games. MSoft and Sony use a business model where they lose money on the consoles, hedging their bets that they will make enough profit from the software to cover the losses. Nintendo's business model is to make profit off of hardware and software.

-X

[Shodan2020]

Weren't people saying that about the DS touch screen? The analog stick on the N64 controller? The D-Pad on the NES controller? The shoulder buttons on the SNES controller? Come on, Nintendo has revolutionized the way we play our games in every generation with it's controllers (except maybe the GC). There wouldn't be a Dual Shock if it wasn't for Nintendo.

This isn't fanboy talk. Those are just facts that you can read in any videogame website or magazine.

The NES Advance with that weirdo analog D-pad sucked balls.

The NES Advantage big controller with that joystick rocked the house. :)

[Heretic Machine]

Also, Gamecube WAS them competing on power, and PS2 the least powerful system won! If graphics mattered or didn't, now we're talking about the difference in graphics between 3 systems that are all more powerful than xbox. What I'm saying is, having that controller or not is a much greater difference in system capabilities than the processor speed

Nintendo is not going to pull a PS2 this time around. Why? Because Nintendo BLEW IT with the N64, and created a huge number of Sony loyalists in that generation. Loyalists reproduce via word of mouth and peer preasure. "What, you're buying one of THOSE? Why don't you get a PS2 instead of a TOY?"

Sony's Playstation brand carries a lot of weight, enough to win the generation for the PS2. It gave them a huge early lead, and as Steve Ballmer will tell you, that's often all you need. One you get a huge early install base, you'll have developers making games for YOUR console, and that will just bring in more and more gamers. This generation is different, with Sony coming out with the PS3 last, and with their name having taken quite a hit last generation with the underdog popularity of the XBOX. Nintendo also eanred back a lot of fans with the Gamecube (including myself) and did some recovery work on their brand.

The Revolution has a good chance of coming in second place this time around, or even coming in third while still making a huge chunk of change for Nintendo. But I don't think anyone can realistically say that Nintendo is going to be king again anytime soon.

[Dracula-X]

And yes, if it is 2/3 of the 360's price and less than 2/3 of its hardware capability (adjusted for bundled controller cost), that is a shortcoming. Making games, even graphically simple ones, is cheaper and faster on more powerful hardware. Every programmer in the world will tell you that there's never a case where less hardware is better. Lesser hardware specs will always limit gameplay possibilities, not multiply them.
I understand where you're coming from, but I'm of the opinion that less capable hardware fosters creativity and ingenuity if only to get the most out of it, not necessarily limiting gameplay possibilities. It may mean more work and research, but that's part of the fun for a programmer, at least that's how it was for us back in the 8 & 16bit eras. I think that paradigm will come into play with the Rev, doing more with less, so to speak.

[Dracula-X]

Interesting factoid: Nintendo actually made the most money out of the last generation of consoles/games. MSoft and Sony use a business model where they lose money on the consoles, hedging their bets that they will make enough profit from the software to cover the losses. Nintendo's business model is to make profit off of hardware and software.
*** was the only one to not have offset the losses with the XBox hardware. $ony's losses on hardware have always been short term, reaching profitablity on hardware within a year or two. One thing that $ony does extremely well, perhaps better than any other manufacturer, is streamline productions, increase efficiency and reduce costs as rapidly as possible.

[RMan]

But I don't think anyone can realistically say that Nintendo is going to be king again anytime soon.
Hehe, it's going out on a limb, but I will. I've been around the block, seen two regime changes (don’t know if you remember Atari, but they held the reigns for a while) and there are several things that I’ve learned very well. Hardware specs don’t matter much, the games make the system, nobody’s impervious to defeat, and a single decade of dominance hardly guarantees eternal victory (unless you’ve only been paying attention to the last ten years). Sony took the industry because they did well, and Nintendo dropped the ball. This time around, I think the roles are reversed (except it’s more about Nintendo making the right moves this time, but it’s a surprisingly similar situation).

[Tohoya]

Perigon is right here, man. Nintendo is competing for gaming dollars and consumer attention, same as the other companies, but they have adopted a wildly-successful PR line intended to dissuade people from focusing on the shortcomings of the Revolution.

And yes, if it is 2/3 of the 360's price and less than 2/3 of its hardware capability (adjusted for bundled controller cost), that is a shortcoming. Making games, even graphically simple ones, is cheaper and faster on more powerful hardware. Every programmer in the world will tell you that there's never a case where less hardware is better. Lesser hardware specs will always limit gameplay possibilities, not multiply them.

For example, HL couldn't have been made as a graphically simpler version of HL2, with the exact same gameplay. Why? Because processor speeds only made the real-time simulation of complex physics interactions feasible to implement in an interesting way in the past few years. Writing that off as meaningless graphics whoring is nonsense, the physics-based gameplay was innovative and amazing, and it was enabled by powerful modern CPUs.

Trying to put a semantic division between technology and innovation is, as mentioned, nothing more than PR. Really high-quality PR which has persuaded many thinking gamers, but in the end it is still fairly divorced from the realities of development.


Actually, I think the lesser hardware specs will indeed be an advantage. Why do we see so many innovative titles on the DS, so many retreads on the PSP? It's because of the graphivs, I think, not because of the touchscreen of the other features. Simply put, the graphics for the DS are much, much cheaper to make, so developers are willing to take more risks. If having that innovative gameplay means sacrificing some video quality, sign me up.

[Smoof]

I think the revolution, if priced between $150-$200 has a huge advantage to grab A LOT of people.

I am a staunch(?) PCGamer. I'll never stop upgraded and playing games on my PC, in fact, I just spent some money upgrading it. I am wholly NOT interested in the 360 and PS3, they both seem to gimmicky and I personally never really cared about them. I have a PS2, but that was recieved for Christmas many, many years ago. In total, I have more DVD's I watch on the PS2 than I have games for it.
That said, for some reason, the Revolution is very interesting to me. The control scheme and the fact that it has a low purchase price and the potential for a low priced SDK. Also, what interests me is pure nostalgia factor. I grew-up with an Atari and then a Nintendo, followed by Sega. I still have fond memories of each and the idea that I could be playing simpler games in the future entices me. Gamecube had many interesting games on it, but I never bought one. Things like the Mario series and whatnot.

I think they have the huge potential to grab people like myself. I'm not looking for a Blu-Ray machine and all that junk. Screw the DVD wars BS. I don't care about all the extra "features" they tack on. I have my PC to do all those jobs--simply put, I want something to play games on.

[SMES]

I know some mid 20 gamer types who simply couldn't play Mario Sunshine because they found it so damn hard.

Show me a mid-20's gamer who though Mario Sunshine was too hard and I'll show you a pansy.

[Ailer]

Show me a mid-20's gamer who though Mario Sunshine was too hard and I'll show you a pansy.

Please meet Nath5000. One of the old school hated members of Evil Avatar.

[Sl1pstream]

Hehe, it's going out on a limb, but I will. I've been around the block, seen two regime changes (don’t know if you remember Atari, but they held the reigns for a while) and there are several things that I’ve learned very well. Hardware specs don’t matter much, the games make the system, nobody’s impervious to defeat, and a single decade of dominance hardly guarantees eternal victory (unless you’ve only been paying attention to the last ten years). Sony took the industry because they did well, and Nintendo dropped the ball. This time around, I think the roles are reversed (except it’s more about Nintendo making the right moves this time, but it’s a surprisingly similar situation).

Another thing has changed throughout the years. A big part of the mainstream wants games that look cool and hate everything kiddie. Sure, DS sells well, but imo there's still a big difference between handheld and home console. Yes, Nintendo has things like RE4 and ED, but those are rare. The public will think of Nintendo as kiddy and kiddies will hate their parents if they brought home a Revolution instead of the PS3 they've asked for.

If there's going to be a change, it's going to be Microsoft. Then again, I don't see a change coming, not this generation.

[shnastybiznastic]

when people go looking for a handheld gaming system those are their choices. Most will get one OR the other. That means it's a competition.
Slippery Slope Alert!

By this logic, the bar down the street is in competition with my landlord, they both want my paycheck(and I probably will get one or the other ;) ). Simply trying to entice customers into spending money on your product as opposed to a different company's product does not competitors make.

It's a question of market segments. Emachines isn't in competition with Alienware, but they both offer computers. What we should be debating is not the question of competition, but if the market is large enough to suppourt two segments.

Personnally, I think it's quite large enough, but the distinctions don't exist.

[Heretic Machine]

Bad analogies abound.

[shnastybiznastic]

Bad analogies abound.
Was it the fact that Emachines occupies the economy market segment for a general purpouse piece of hardware, and that Alienware competes mostly in the interactive entertainment segment?

How about this(probably also bad): The solidbody guitar market in the 70s' changed as a new market segment, the superstrat, began to offer cheaper alternatives to the SG or Les Paul.

New market segment begins to open, company (in the case of nintendo and casual gaming) or companies (in the case of all the superstrat manufacturers in the mid to late seventies) rush in.

The question is weather or not casual gaming is enough of a market for it to fragment.

**Not trying to start a flamewar, BTW, just want to get the metaphor right. :o **

[Nessus]

I know Nintendo isn't a kiddie system. I'm not saying the PS is better than any Nintendo system, or vice versa. I'm simply saying that in the actual consumer market this is how things are. Ask any of the various retail people on this site, they'll tell you. That is what you see, I used to see it too when I worked retail.

Well I think one thing that could make a difference is that Nintendo has recognized this problem and has been slowly but steadily changing their marketing and the design of their consoles.

Personally I think the Rev is the "coolest" looking of the 3 new consoles, followed by the PS3 minus the Spider-Man font, and in a distant third the 360.

They've also adopted the trendy "iPod" style with the transparent layer over top of white, and that is also mirrored in the DS Lite (I personally like that the DS Lite and the Rev match, but I'm weird).

They've also begun exploiting the current retro video game kitsch which almost exclusively revolves around NES games. The Rev will be the first time that the general public will have a way of legally obtaining the most popular ROMs (yes the 360 plays arcade games, but the most popular emulators are still NES and SNES). But we've yet to see a pricing structure yet, so Nintendo could blow this opportunity.

And I think Nintendo may have something with trying to simplify the control scheme. We as hardcore gamers take it as an insult, but almost every very casual or non-gamer I can think of doesn't like the current controller designs. Girls I know often have difficulty navigating 3D games because the analog stick is too abstract, whereas the Revmote is the opposite of abstract.

Personally I think Rev will place 3rd in North America, but hopefully sell better than GameCube, but in Japan I honestly think they could rival Sony, just seeing how they've hit every note with the DS and have truly expanded the market over there (and to a lesser extent over here and in Europe).

[RMan]

Another thing has changed throughout the years. A big part of the mainstream wants games that look cool and hate everything kiddie.
Is that right? I think not, I think the numerous Animal Crossing, Nintendogs, and WoW players (to name a few) might disagree. Look, this attitude you speak of mostly exists here, on the internet, amongst hardcore gamers. A large part of that is because of recent hardware advances, as well as MS and Sony having no better idea how to push new hardware (mostly MS, I’m sure Sony would have been happy not to release anything for another year or so), have made graphics the marketing point for the newer systems. Couple that with the fact that the internet is great for browsing screenshots means that promoting a title or hardware on the internet is best done with great graphics, but saying that’s of great importance to sales, much less required, is highly speculative. IOW, judging what people want in a game by what the average internet browsing gamer clicks on isn’t terribly useful, of course they’re going to gravitate to the prettier pictures. When I look at game charts for various years, it seems clear that the pretty graphics are no more required for sales than they have ever been. MS and Sony have done a good job convincing people they must have the prettiest graphics, or you’re not cool, but there’s no evidence it’s any more effective than any other marketing campaign, and although they can shape the market some, they haven’t changed what people want significantly.
Sure, DS sells well, but imo there's still a big difference between handheld and home console.
And that difference being that it is evidence against your position?
The public will think of Nintendo as kiddy and kiddies will hate their parents if they brought home a Revolution instead of the PS3 they've asked for.
Hehe, the kids that hate their parents for that will hate their parents for something anyway, and they’re parents know it. Saying the “public” will think of it this way is just silly, I’m sure a few will (mostly dysfunctional, soon to be criminal types :)) but the public’s response, even at this stage, doesn’t reflect that at all.

[Magnanimous Gnome]

Wow, do we really need to have this lame discussion every few weeks?

I guess we must, so can we at least agree on two rules:

1)No lame substitutions of dollar signs in Sony or MS. It makes you look like a douche.

2)No more damn analogies! Nintendo vs Sony is kind of like panda bears vs ostriches. Jeez why can't you understand that??? :rolleyes:

[Chameleo]

revo will do great in japan if the ds is any example.

america? who knows.

[Stormwatcher]

Wow, do we really need to have this lame discussion every few weeks?

I guess we must, so can we at least agree on two rules:

1)No lame substitutions of dollar signs in Sony or MS. It makes you look like a douche.

2)No more damn analogies! Nintendo vs Sony is kind of like panda bears vs ostriches. Jeez why can't you understand that??? :rolleyes:

I put my money on the panda bear. They're so cute.

[AlmostSente]

Am I the only one seeing the likeness? ;)
Not that I'm implying anything. I will own all 3 consoles as long as they release at least one good game.

http://dunamai.com/Humor/BagdadBob/images/bagdad_bob_large.gif

[Heretic Machine]

Look, this attitude you speak of mostly exists here, on the internet, amongst hardcore gamers.

You've never actually gone to a game store before, have you? Or even stood in the game aisle in Wal-mart. If you had, surely you would of noticed that kids don't stand in front of the Gamecube rack. They are almost always focused on the PS2, with a few wandering over to the XBOX every now and then. The only Nintendo products I've seen any child interested in, in say the past five years, are all handhelds. The DS, the GBA, and their games all attract children like the plauge. But their console just doesn't excite them, they are Sony loyalists because that's what their older peers play (the same ones who listen to KoRN and Limp Bisket.. or whatever the hell they play on MTV these days).

I know this, because my older cousin made me a Nintendo loyalist way back when I was little. That's why I bought the N64 first, and the PS1 second. Of course the N64's massive suckage drove us both into Sony's arms...

I have owned every Nintendo console, ever. Maybe not all the variations (GBA, GBA pocket, GBC... etc), but I've got'em all. I even have love for my Virtual Boy, which is still in pristine condition. But I have no illussions about their position in the market. They aren't attracting casual gamers, and they sure as hell aren't attracting children to the Gamecube/Revolution... they are still fueled by Nintendo loyalists like me, who still love the same franchises we played when we were young. Sure, we grab up a few more every now and then, people wanting to be different than the Sony crowd. But let's face it, most of the people who will be buying a Revolution, also already own a Gamecube.

But that's ok, because as has been said many times, Nintendo has the highest profit margin out of the three (when it comes to their games). I have no doubt that Nintendo will be around for a long time to come. They just aren't going to take back the throne that they built in the 8-bit era.

[OrangePulp]

I want a game for the Revolution called Beatdown. All you do is beat up random people, animals and objects with a giant stick, or bat, or something. I could do that all day. :)

Thats what I thought about State of Emergency...

[bboy]

Hands down, best pic of Miyamoto I've seen.


Hands up even... ;)

[RMan]

The only Nintendo products I've seen any child interested in, in say the past five years, are all handhelds.
Ok, you're whole thing is basically "the gamecube isn't popular" (yes, I broke your complicated code). We know the Gamecube isn't popular, and if you think that what the Revolution has going for it is no different than what the Gamecube had, then you're very wrong. BTW, I have seen plenty of kids playing GC games (because I know several households with the system), but sure, the PS2 has a far greater library and retail presence, I'm not arguing that.

[Heretic Machine]

Ok, you're whole thing is basically "the gamecube isn't popular" (yes, I broke your complicated code). We know the Gamecube isn't popular, and if you think that what the Revolution has going for it is no different than what the Gamecube had, then you're very wrong. BTW, I have seen plenty of kids playing GC games (because I know several households with the system), but sure, the PS2 has a far greater library and retail presence, I'm not arguing that.

Ya, it's going after a whole new market! Just like the DS did, it sooo didn't go after the people who owned GBA's... Oh wait, yes it fucking did! Stop spouting PR lines.

[Magnanimous Gnome]

I put my money on the panda bear. They're so cute.


QFT. Panda bears FTW!


Acronyms FTW2!

[RMan]

Ya, it's going after a whole new market! Just like the DS did, it sooo didn't go after the people who owned GBA's... Oh wait, yes it fucking did! Stop spouting PR lines.
I did not say the DS was going after a new market, and I don't believe Nintendo did either (staying somewhere close to the topic would be nice). Do you seriously believe that there's simply no people out there that would be interested in an experience not being offered by the current systems? I mean, you won't find them here, because people not interested in the current games market don't post on gaming websites for obvious reasons, but they are out there.

Also, I'm not going to stop saying positive things about companies or products just because they may sound like PR lines, I think these forums are negative enough.

[Heretic Machine]

I did not say the DS was going after a new market, and I don't believe Nintendo did either

Yes, they did. They used the exact same PR for the DS as they are doing for the Revolution. Don't think that this is a coincidence.

Do you seriously believe that there's simply no people out there that would be interested in an experience not being offered by the current systems?

Sure, but they aren't non-gamers. Most of them are Nintendo fans.

I mean, you won't find them here, because people not interested in the current games market don't post on gaming websites for obvious reasons, but they are out there.

People not interested in games don't know what a Revolution is. They don't know why you would need a "revolution" in gaming. When you show them the Revolution controller, they either laugh or scoff. Try it some time.

Also, I'm not going to stop saying positive things about companies or products just because they may sound like PR lines, I think these forums are negative enough.

You can say plenty of positive things about Nintendo and the Revolution, I do all the time. But you are carrying their PR instead. It's like if I went around saying, "Do the Dew!" or if I said, "Vault, drinks like a soda, kicks like an energy drink!" That's what you are doing right now.

[jonat3]

It must be said that while it is still PR, there IS some truth to it. The DS has the highest amount of female gamers ever compared to GBA and psp. What does this tell us? It tells us that Nintendo have indeed reached a demographic outside of the original one, even if the original one is included in the DS current demographic.

Fact of the matter is, Nintendo's strategy is working. You can say it's only PR, but this PR is partly based on truth.

[RMan]

Yes, they did. They used the exact same PR for the DS as they are doing for the Revolution. Don't think that this is a coincidence.
I don't think it's a coincidence, because I have not seen the info regarding the DS you're speaking of, regardless, my "new market" argument is for the Revolution. Personally, I do not think the DS was divergent enough from the existing market to say they were aggressively going after a different user base, even if they did in fact bring in new players.
Sure, but they aren't non-gamers. Most of them are Nintendo fans.
That really makes no sense, if they’re Nintendo fans that would make them gamers, unless you’re saying they’re Nintendo fans because Mario is so sexy or something.
People not interested in games don't know what a Revolution is. They don't know why you would need a "revolution" in gaming.
Yes, it’s marketing campaign hasn’t really started outside of the gaming community, and most people didn’t feel they needed an ipod until someone showed them how much cooler it is than a walkman.
When you show them the Revolution controller, they either laugh or scoff. Try it some time.
Actually, I’ve talked to several non-gamers about it, and they’ve been intrigued by it, only one gamer has scoffed at it, and that’s before I explained it fully (they actually just scoffed at the idea of something non-standard). Of course, I have a positive attitude about it, rather than the torpedoing negative attitude that you likely present to them.
It's like if I went around saying, "Do the Dew!" or if I said, "Vault, drinks like a soda, kicks like an energy drink!" That's what you are doing right now.
Agreeing with someone doesn’t make you their mouthpiece. Saying “I like Mountain Dew” is not spouting a PR line. Actually, this is tiresome, I can’t believe at this point that you don’t understand what I’m saying. I believe a different kind of system can be made, and an untapped market can be tapped, and Nintendo can make a system that’s not competing with the PS3. Whether it’s a lack of imagination or a difference in opinion of what words mean, you’re not getting it, and likely never will, and unless something more interesting and thoughtful than this comes up I’m done with this thread.

[Heretic Machine]

That really makes no sense, if they’re Nintendo fans that would make them gamers, unless you’re saying they’re Nintendo fans because Mario is so sexy or something.

Then read it again. They aren't non-gamers, they are Nintendo fans. Thus, they aren't bringing in new people. Get it? Catching on?

Actually, I’ve talked to several non-gamers about it, and they’ve been intrigued by it, only one gamer has scoffed at it, and that’s before I explained it fully (they actually just scoffed at the idea of something non-standard). Of course, I have a positive attitude about it, rather than the torpedoing negative attitude that you likely present to them.

You must live in a much more progressive area than I do! Because I showed a lot of my non-VGamer friends the video the morning after it came out, and they hated it.

I can’t believe at this point that you don’t understand what I’m saying.

I understand what you're saying. I understood it when it came out of Miyamoto's mouth the first time. It sounded much better coming from him.

[TheBrainKills]

I just love these threads, because of these little gems


Nintendo doesn't really have a choice whether they'll be competing or not. The only way not to compete with Sony and Microsoft is to pull their console from the market.

And then a couple of posts later...

To be honest, the 360 will probably be the alternative choice for most people. First choice being the PS3, of course.

In many ways, Revolution really is in its own market.

Schizo or what?

Wait for E3 people, then we will see some games in action.

[RMan]

Then read it again. They aren't non-gamers, they are Nintendo fans. Thus, they aren't bringing in new people. Get it? Catching on?
Yes, I do now, the "sure" was supposed to be a "no" (since Nintendo fans would be playing the Gamecube, or whatever makes them a Nintendo fan). In that case, you're wrong, just like if the only fast food was hamburgers, less people would eat fast food, they’d simply eat at home or go to a restaurant. But since we have alternatives like Subway, more people are interested in fast food, and although they both sell food, Subway isn’t trying to make a better hamburger than McDonalds or Burger King (get it now, Subway is Nintendo, McDonalds/Burger King is MS/Sony). People uninterested in current games/systems are just watching TV or movies or something else, we have no idea how much game playing they would do if games were designed more to please them than the core gamer market as they are now. This should be clear now, but as before, somehow I think you’ll figure out a way not to see the obvious or call me a PR tool because I see the same shortcomings in the current products as Nintendo does.
You must live in a much more progressive area than I do! Because I showed a lot of my non-VGamer friends the video the morning after it came out, and they hated it.
Well, I’m sure if I showed them the silly video I’d get that reaction too (I mean, come on, that was a goofy commercial, especially without context). The only thing that was good about that is it did raise questions about what the system was about, but other than that, looked a bit silly. Hopefully when they do their big marketing at systems release they’ve got stuff more like ipod commercials, where it’s still kinda goofy “I’m having fun with this thing” but presented in a cool way.