Viewing Thread:
""No Revolution at E3""

"The next-generation Nintendo console, codenamed Revolution, may not be shown at this year's E3. Eurogamer reports that the Japanese console maker is going to keep the console under wraps to keep the features of the new system out of the limelight a little while longer. From the article: "Nintendo boss Satoru Iwata is worried about rivals nicking all his best ideas at this early stage. That's how revolutionary the new console is, apparently... and also the exact same line Nintendo used to avoid showing Mario 128 at a previous E3."

True or not, Nintendos E3 presence won't be that noticable if this happens, even Zelda will only spark a minute amount of interest compared to the other two consoles planned to be unveiled at the show.

[URL]http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=58675[/URL]

gerrid wrote:
> I really don't think that you can say GC as a budget console in the
> face of PS3 and XB360 would work, at all. Don't forget that in the
> run up to the next generation, PS2s and Xboxs are going to lower in
> price as well.

There's a difference.
There's slashing a console's price to get rid of it, CLEAR it. That is symptom's of a console's death. And there's PUSHING it.
PS2's and Xbox's are going to be seen as "replaced" in the face of the PS3 and XB2's. The Revolution is a long way off (and it was more about the scenario of the REV not being even on the horizon).

If Nintendo continue to support it with games, and properly market it, then it'll almost be like a re-release rather than a clearance.

> People don't choose the Gamecube now, and it's
> £30, why will they when the Xbox and PS2 are £50, and
> with Xbox 360 and PS3 round the corner?

Again, it's this whole "clearance" thing.
The scenario is that Nintendo use their GC devellopment games to start pumping out cheap 'n cheerful games for about £10, be it a quickly hashed together "Mario 64 with different story and levels" or some quick game, that doesn't cost a lot devellop and gets the game out cheap.
The reason why most people avoid "dying" consoles is if they seem obselete. If Nintendo market it, rather than let retailers "clear" it, then they can turn that around.

> Budget consoles don't work. People see price as equated to quality.
> If the GC is £20 and the games £10 people will just see
> it as utter ball hockey, and just laugh.

Again, clearance makes it look obselete.
Budget marketing... blah blah blah... ;-)

> There are two ways to look at the next generation of consoles - as
> busniess men and as gamers. None of us are business men, and so none
> of us can say with any authority what Nintendo should do
> fiscally-speaking (i.e how they can make more money). What we CAN do,
> is say what we want - not what will make Nintendo the most money - but
> what we as gamers would like to see.

I've wanted there to be a good quality budget console since forever.


> Personally, I would have liked
> this current generation to have continued for another 2 or so years -
> games like Zelda and Resi 4 are obvious indicators that the GC has
> more to it than many people thought. But that isn't the case - Sony
> have pushed the next generation upon on us(their PS2 is 5 years old,
> after all - Microsoft are just getting in there first), and we have
> to react.

So we agree that Sony and MS are pushing a pre-mature jump.
Personally, I think that it's going to be a mess for them.
In your other thread, you've mentioned a LOT of things that can be done with more power but:

a) Have the new consoles have enough power to make such improvements? Certainly to a slight scale at the least, but enough to excuse buying new consoles?
b) Even if the power is there, how many devellopers are going to have the tools/ideas to make proper use of it. In the last generation the improvements were obvious yet the first year of PS2 games (with few exceptions) were PSONE standard in all but slightly better graphics.
c) How many new devellopers are going to even bother taking advantage of such possibilities of complexities to the extent where it makes a difference?

I think that this next generation is a rat race where MS and Sony are purely out for marketing a fresh look.

> Personally, I don't want be forced to buy 2 consoles to play
> nin-Nintendo games and Nintendo games. I don't imagine that's what
> any of you want, either. If you do then that seems a bit strange, as
> it would suggest that you actually like to spend more money that
> necessary.

I think that most people have gone that far anyway now Rare have gone.
Besides, I don't think that the next load is going to be THAT exclusive. The best devellopers will be up for making new games for it. It's just the lazier ones that'll not bother (the ones we never really bought games from anyway).

munn wrote:
> I'll get the Revolution when it comes out + games.
>
> I don't care.

You know what? i think i should of said that in my other reply ;)
Agreed.

Just noticed how long it was sorry =) not been around for ages cause of uni and prob wont be around for another month or so =(

General Overview - Nintendo cant win the gaming specs battle, which is prob why they are making changes to how its played. How it sells etc doesnt bother me, but if it gets bad sales companies will support it less and your all clever enough to see what happens =)

gerrid wrote:
What we CAN do,
> is say what we want - not what will make Nintendo the most money - but
> what we as gamers would like to see.

So very, very true. I find it strange that the majority of conversations i have about console gaming (online/offline etc) always seems to be about the consoles, with the big games names being thrown...like owning the consoles the main reason you buy it and it just happens to play games :\ lol

Imo the "mainstream" are here now cause of Sony mainly so they are here because of marketing and the such, they are TOLD what to like...and Nintendos just not good at that, infact they are "told" not to like Nintendo? Either way Nintendo could not win this because of the already huge fat brick wall in their way thanks to Sony and MS wallets.

So as i read somewhere in these forums they need to "side step", only in the eyes of gamers chances are the next console will hold a new revolutionary way of gaming, to the "mainstream"? They will be programmed to believe they are nothing great and wont understand the changes they make to gaming...until its nicked and then they will be programmed to like it...

Of course none of us know the true extenet of specs/revolution, but chances are if:
1) low specs and price - second console, "new" market with the "revolution" taking it further away from the "normal" consoles.
2) sames specs and price as others (more or less) - the same as it is now, with the revolution aspect leading to either Nintendo gaining more fans cause they are truly useful, or losing more cause companies find it hard to work on etc

Me personally? unless Nintendo truely mess it up i will have their next console...depending on prices/differences i may get an Xbox 360 after another year or two.

gerrid wrote:
> Personally, I don't want be forced to buy 2 consoles to play
> nin-Nintendo games and Nintendo games. I don't imagine that's what
> any of you want, either. If you do then that seems a bit strange, as
> it would suggest that you actually like to spend more money that
> necessary.

Eh?

Anyway, what I thjink they should do when they release the Revolution is continue to make GC games and just put them on the Revolution too.

The first revolution games aren't going tpo blow you away, they can't be much better than Resi 4 and Zelda, so you might as well continue to make GC games and let people buy the Revolution if they want to.

It WILL be backwards compatible after all.

I dunno.
I don't care either.
I'll get the Revolution when it comes out + games.

I don't care.

I really don't think that you can say GC as a budget console in the face of PS3 and XB360 would work, at all. Don't forget that in the run up to the next generation, PS2s and Xboxs are going to lower in price as well. People don't choose the Gamecube now, and it's £30, why will they when the Xbox and PS2 are £50, and with Xbox 360 and PS3 round the corner?

Budget consoles don't work. People see price as equated to quality. If the GC is £20 and the games £10 people will just see it as utter ball hockey, and just laugh.

There are two ways to look at the next generation of consoles - as busniess men and as gamers. None of us are business men, and so none of us can say with any authority what Nintendo should do fiscally-speaking (i.e how they can make more money). What we CAN do, is say what we want - not what will make Nintendo the most money - but what we as gamers would like to see. Personally, I would have liked this current generation to have continued for another 2 or so years - games like Zelda and Resi 4 are obvious indicators that the GC has more to it than many people thought. But that isn't the case - Sony have pushed the next generation upon on us(their PS2 is 5 years old, after all - Microsoft are just getting in there first), and we have to react.

Personally, I don't want be forced to buy 2 consoles to play nin-Nintendo games and Nintendo games. I don't imagine that's what any of you want, either. If you do then that seems a bit strange, as it would suggest that you actually like to spend more money that necessary.

I doubt we'll be getting the PS3 and Revolution until late 06 anyway.
That's still a good 18 months away.

Nintendo should, rather than not release Revolution jsut continue to sell teh GC alongside it like Sony did with the PS1.

Lower the price of GC games and people may buy a GC to get a few cheap games.
Then they'll realise that the Revolution is backwards compatible and that they can keep these games and buy more newer ones for the new console, so they get a Revolution (Which is still a gay codename I say, N5 all the way).

Strafio wrote:

> And I know that devellopment time isn't always the best way to judge
> quality of a game, but you could tell that the GC's lot was rushed
> and that the N64's lot had had the quality time spent on them.

I believe you are living through rose tinted specs.

Titles like Pikmin 2, Paper Mario 2, Super Smash Brothers: Melee and Metroid Prime were not rushed titles. Filled to the brim with extras and clever little modes that make Nintendo games so special. They also existed in the likes of Wind Waker, Sunshine, Double Dash etc...

Although to be honest in Wind Waker there were some bits lacking, then again it is still my favourite Gamecube game. Next to Pikmin 2, Paper Mario 2 and Resident Evil 4, of course.

Through extra sales.

They'd basically be selling it to people who wouldn't have bought it otherwise (and £10 was only for the players choice range).
I mean, the £10 are games that are already made and the production costs used. Now they want to flog as many as they can.

Besides, they should have sufficient devellopment tools to make game devellopment relatively easy, so should find it easier to churn out more games. When people are paying £10-£20 for a game, it doesn't have to be the most amazingly original game ever.

And I know that devellopment time isn't always the best way to judge quality of a game, but you could tell that the GC's lot was rushed and that the N64's lot had had the quality time spent on them.

The more time Nintendo spend mastering the revolution, the more of a revolution the launch could be. :-)

Development time is a rubbish measure of quality games. Mario Tennis 64 took 8 months whilst Starfox Armada has taken 4 years. What's your point?

Nintendo are terrified of a software price cut because it could cripple Nintendo's bottom line profit, they'd REALLY need to reduce programmers and designers and reduce production costs. And note production costs go up when less companies use that form of production.

£10 a game? And how are Nintendo gonna make money from it?

a) The time is not right yet - it'll be that silent gap between this generation and the next. That's when things would start potentially picking up. Once this momentum is achieved then it ought to carry on through the launch of the new systems.

b) Nintendo need to push it.
Instead of just letting retailers slash the price to clear it they need to market it properly as a budget console. They'd need to set a standard price across all stores and work out the optimum price for a budget market.
There are a lot of casual gamers who could fall for Nintendo if it wasn't such a "risk" buying a game (you don't feel so bad if you buy a crap game for less than £10).
They'd need to promote and advertise the budgetness of it too.

It CAN be done if Nintendo want to do it.
They seem to rather let the Gamecube die and do something else instead.
Fair enough. They could do good with the revolution, but I think they'd do even better to harvest on a budget market while they hold back the revolution while they work on some amazing games for it (most of the GC ones were rushed - OOT was in devellopment for 4 years - notice a difference?).

I mean, infiltrating a budget console into people's homes wouldn't just make them profit, it would sell their brand better than ANY form of traditional advertising. The "played it at a mates house" is how GTA3 became so big.