The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Yer according to an interview with "Toyota" Ken Toyota, Nintendo Japans PR man,
"E3 will be the starting point for the Revolution. [We haven't decided] whether we will show the real machine, videos, or unveil the concept. ... We want to receive some level of evaluation, but releasing too much information is also another issue. We don't have the slightest intention of making a machine that follows the same path as conventional game hardware. Right now, we are thinking of how we can accurately convey to people at E3 the different path that the Revolution will take and how it will change the way that games will be enjoyed."
With PS3 and Xbox 2 confirmed playable, it would be an idiotic move by Nintendo not to have some sort of hands on demonstration of the Revolution. If the reason that they keep everything movie form is because they don't have any actual playable games, then Nintendo are in trouble. With Revolution's Launch pencilled in (by us) for 12 - 18 months time, no playable software, indeed no playable hardware is a worrying sign.
If 3rd parties don't get a chance to get to grips with Revolution soon, the launch will be another 3 game Nintendo only affair, and up against stiff competition from Sony and Microsoft (despite what Nintendo like to think), their own Revolutionary games won't be enough to carry the console.
"E3 will be the starting point for the Revolution. [We haven't decided] whether we will show the real machine, videos, or unveil the concept. ... We want to receive some level of evaluation, but releasing too much information is also another issue. We don't have the slightest intention of making a machine that follows the same path as conventional game hardware. Right now, we are thinking of how we can accurately convey to people at E3 the different path that the Revolution will take and how it will change the way that games will be enjoyed."
With PS3 and Xbox 2 confirmed playable, it would be an idiotic move by Nintendo not to have some sort of hands on demonstration of the Revolution. If the reason that they keep everything movie form is because they don't have any actual playable games, then Nintendo are in trouble. With Revolution's Launch pencilled in (by us) for 12 - 18 months time, no playable software, indeed no playable hardware is a worrying sign.
If 3rd parties don't get a chance to get to grips with Revolution soon, the launch will be another 3 game Nintendo only affair, and up against stiff competition from Sony and Microsoft (despite what Nintendo like to think), their own Revolutionary games won't be enough to carry the console.
Page:
They'll all keep going.
gerrid wrote:
> I think if Nintendo didn't release the Revolution they would be dead
> inthe water.
Even though they make a killing off the software?
> The Gamecube isn't doing "strongly", as you suggest, it's a
> dying horse. The general conception of it is that it's a kiddys
> console and Nintendo doesn't have time to remedy that. Whether a new
> series of consoles is required is another matter altogether.
> But the fact is that they're coming and Nintendo need to stay abreast
> of the competition.
You sound like Macintosh and Top Score. Thinking Nintendo should do exactly as Sony and Microsoft in order to compete. I really am dissapointed. Nintendo don't go about it Sony and Microsoft's way because Nintendo aren't Sony and Microsoft. Sure they don't sell as well but Nintendo's unique approach to games and gaming make me like them.
If Nintendo decided to up adult content on their consoles thats fine. As long as we don't lose Pikmin, Pokemon, Mario and so forth...
The Gamecube sales are poor, but those that buy the Gamecube buy it for the Nintendo software. Which means every Gamecube owner buys at least 3 Nintendo published games a year. Which means? Yep the Gamecube makes Nintendo a profit. Nintendo always make the most money out of the software. See it this way Nintendo make way more from software sales on the Gamecube than Rockstar does on the PS2. And Rockstar are well in the money.
But the Gamecube can turn it around easily with a big release. Zelda at the end of the year will cause a big worldwide boost in Gamecube sales. Perhaps just for a month or two, but that'll be more consoles sold and Zelda bought.
Just think back to 2003 where Nintendo kept sales going with loads of big releases. It was a great year for Nintendo. 2005 will be similar I feel.
> I think if Nintendo didn't release the Revolution they would be dead
> inthe water.
Even though they make a killing off the software?
> The Gamecube isn't doing "strongly", as you suggest, it's a
> dying horse. The general conception of it is that it's a kiddys
> console and Nintendo doesn't have time to remedy that. Whether a new
> series of consoles is required is another matter altogether.
> But the fact is that they're coming and Nintendo need to stay abreast
> of the competition.
You sound like Macintosh and Top Score. Thinking Nintendo should do exactly as Sony and Microsoft in order to compete. I really am dissapointed. Nintendo don't go about it Sony and Microsoft's way because Nintendo aren't Sony and Microsoft. Sure they don't sell as well but Nintendo's unique approach to games and gaming make me like them.
If Nintendo decided to up adult content on their consoles thats fine. As long as we don't lose Pikmin, Pokemon, Mario and so forth...
The Gamecube sales are poor, but those that buy the Gamecube buy it for the Nintendo software. Which means every Gamecube owner buys at least 3 Nintendo published games a year. Which means? Yep the Gamecube makes Nintendo a profit. Nintendo always make the most money out of the software. See it this way Nintendo make way more from software sales on the Gamecube than Rockstar does on the PS2. And Rockstar are well in the money.
But the Gamecube can turn it around easily with a big release. Zelda at the end of the year will cause a big worldwide boost in Gamecube sales. Perhaps just for a month or two, but that'll be more consoles sold and Zelda bought.
Just think back to 2003 where Nintendo kept sales going with loads of big releases. It was a great year for Nintendo. 2005 will be similar I feel.
gerrid wrote:
> Dringo you make just as many assumptions as every one else. And stop
> riding around no your high horse saying "stop speculating".
> If we didn't speculate what the hell would we talk about?
> You have failed to understand what I'm saying - that if Nintendo
> don't show Revolution at E3 in a way that people will take it
> seriously as a competitor, that's A BAD THING.
But even if they don't show it it doesn't matter... there's tonnes of big gameshows, there is some TV gameshows now and there's even the possibility of Nintendo's own show to display the Gamecube. The fact is it might be worthwhile Nintendo showing the console after Sony and Microsoft to avoid getting overshadowed.
> You can't deny that if PS3 and XB360 are either playable, or with
> concept/finalised design, and the Revolution is just unveiled as a
> concept with a logo, Nintendo will start off on the back foot. First
> impressions are EVERYTHING.
Not in the gaming world it isn't. Take the X-box as an example. Consumers don't pay attention to E3, they'll know of a new Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo console at the most and they'll all only really start hearing about it a few months before they are released. Don't make a big deal about E3, it is essentially a show for the hardcore gamer, or basically the nerds that follow gaming. It is the game show for US. And we don't need to see Revolution yet.
> How disappointing would it be if the Revolution announcement at E3
> was just Reggie saying "Revolution will be revolutionary",
> saying "it will have gyroscoping controllers, no fixations
> points, wings" and then showing some people from SEGA saying
> "I'm really excited by the revolution". That would be crap.
> Don't pretend it wouldn't be. I doubt there's anybody here who would
> be satisfied by that, and it would just leave people open to being
> scpetical. Nintendo can't just reveal the concept, they have to
> DEMONSTRATE it. Not necessarily in playable form, but they need to
> SHOW people what it can do, not TELL them. At E3 you can SEE that the
> PS3 looks great, that the XB360 looks great, but you're just TOLD
> that the Revolution looks great. It just leaves Nintendo open for
> loads of criticism. No videos of games, nothing to SHOW suggests that
> there isn't anything. Whether that's true or not doesn't matter, but
> people aren't going to just trust Nintendo when they say the console
> is "great, revolutionary", they need to see it. We need to
> see it.
No... we don't. The console isn't ready yet. The games aren't ready yet. Why do we have to see it now? Is the Gamecube not good enough for you? It's only been out a few years. I'd like to see Nintendo shock Sony and Microsoft and upset them. But I don't need to see a playable system. It isn't essential. It might help upset the balance.
You must know I've been a big gaming geek now for about 8 years. Nintendo have only failed to show up Sony and Microsoft at E3 once and that was the big connectivity/Mario Kart E3. The only let down. The other 7 Nintendo blew away the competiton.
Are Nintendo winning the console war after impressing year on year at E3? No they're not. It isn't gonna make a difference when we see Revolution
> I don't know what you're on about with the 3rd party stuff - I
> mentioned it and I said that the best way to get them on board is to
> get them easy to use deve kits and to get them to them early. You
> can't argue with that.
No, but you somehow believe that Nintendo aren't showing the console because the software isn't ready. Although Nintendo say it's because they don't want their ideas stolen. Something Nintendo have always been afraid of. Nintendo's reason or Gerrid's? Hmmmmmm.
> Dringo I never said that Nintendo WOULDN'T show the Revolution
> properly, it's all hypothetical. I'm saying that if they don't show
> it properly, it won't be successful. That's my opinion. THis is a
> discussion board. If we were all robots and only talked about
> concrete facts and figures it'd just be like you having a
> conversation with yourself. RUBBISH.
No speculating about what Revolution may hold is one thing, speculating Nintendo's plans is one thing, speculating who'll win the war is one thing. Speculating that Nintendo won't have any third party support and will fail because they won't show it fully at E3 is plain ridiculous as there is no evidence or any bloody reason to show this.
Gah it is such a silly silly set of assumptions that don't make any sense.
> Dringo you make just as many assumptions as every one else. And stop
> riding around no your high horse saying "stop speculating".
> If we didn't speculate what the hell would we talk about?
> You have failed to understand what I'm saying - that if Nintendo
> don't show Revolution at E3 in a way that people will take it
> seriously as a competitor, that's A BAD THING.
But even if they don't show it it doesn't matter... there's tonnes of big gameshows, there is some TV gameshows now and there's even the possibility of Nintendo's own show to display the Gamecube. The fact is it might be worthwhile Nintendo showing the console after Sony and Microsoft to avoid getting overshadowed.
> You can't deny that if PS3 and XB360 are either playable, or with
> concept/finalised design, and the Revolution is just unveiled as a
> concept with a logo, Nintendo will start off on the back foot. First
> impressions are EVERYTHING.
Not in the gaming world it isn't. Take the X-box as an example. Consumers don't pay attention to E3, they'll know of a new Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo console at the most and they'll all only really start hearing about it a few months before they are released. Don't make a big deal about E3, it is essentially a show for the hardcore gamer, or basically the nerds that follow gaming. It is the game show for US. And we don't need to see Revolution yet.
> How disappointing would it be if the Revolution announcement at E3
> was just Reggie saying "Revolution will be revolutionary",
> saying "it will have gyroscoping controllers, no fixations
> points, wings" and then showing some people from SEGA saying
> "I'm really excited by the revolution". That would be crap.
> Don't pretend it wouldn't be. I doubt there's anybody here who would
> be satisfied by that, and it would just leave people open to being
> scpetical. Nintendo can't just reveal the concept, they have to
> DEMONSTRATE it. Not necessarily in playable form, but they need to
> SHOW people what it can do, not TELL them. At E3 you can SEE that the
> PS3 looks great, that the XB360 looks great, but you're just TOLD
> that the Revolution looks great. It just leaves Nintendo open for
> loads of criticism. No videos of games, nothing to SHOW suggests that
> there isn't anything. Whether that's true or not doesn't matter, but
> people aren't going to just trust Nintendo when they say the console
> is "great, revolutionary", they need to see it. We need to
> see it.
No... we don't. The console isn't ready yet. The games aren't ready yet. Why do we have to see it now? Is the Gamecube not good enough for you? It's only been out a few years. I'd like to see Nintendo shock Sony and Microsoft and upset them. But I don't need to see a playable system. It isn't essential. It might help upset the balance.
You must know I've been a big gaming geek now for about 8 years. Nintendo have only failed to show up Sony and Microsoft at E3 once and that was the big connectivity/Mario Kart E3. The only let down. The other 7 Nintendo blew away the competiton.
Are Nintendo winning the console war after impressing year on year at E3? No they're not. It isn't gonna make a difference when we see Revolution
> I don't know what you're on about with the 3rd party stuff - I
> mentioned it and I said that the best way to get them on board is to
> get them easy to use deve kits and to get them to them early. You
> can't argue with that.
No, but you somehow believe that Nintendo aren't showing the console because the software isn't ready. Although Nintendo say it's because they don't want their ideas stolen. Something Nintendo have always been afraid of. Nintendo's reason or Gerrid's? Hmmmmmm.
> Dringo I never said that Nintendo WOULDN'T show the Revolution
> properly, it's all hypothetical. I'm saying that if they don't show
> it properly, it won't be successful. That's my opinion. THis is a
> discussion board. If we were all robots and only talked about
> concrete facts and figures it'd just be like you having a
> conversation with yourself. RUBBISH.
No speculating about what Revolution may hold is one thing, speculating Nintendo's plans is one thing, speculating who'll win the war is one thing. Speculating that Nintendo won't have any third party support and will fail because they won't show it fully at E3 is plain ridiculous as there is no evidence or any bloody reason to show this.
Gah it is such a silly silly set of assumptions that don't make any sense.
But when was the last time you saw Nintendo do something they needed to?
Again, it's not something you expect to see. They run in their own way, when they're good and ready, when the timing's right.
I mean, to give us DS and big news on Revolution in the very same year - you may as well hand us the next GameBoy model to go with it, please! :P
Again, it's not something you expect to see. They run in their own way, when they're good and ready, when the timing's right.
I mean, to give us DS and big news on Revolution in the very same year - you may as well hand us the next GameBoy model to go with it, please! :P
The Cube's cheap and has a nice back-catalogue of games. If developers support it there's no reason it can't continue for another year or two.
I think if Nintendo didn't release the Revolution they would be dead inthe water.
The Gamecube isn't doing "strongly", as you suggest, it's a dying horse. The general conception of it is that it's a kiddys console and Nintendo doesn't have time to remedy that. Whether a new series of consoles is required is another matter altogether. But the fact is that they're coming and Nintendo need to stay abreast of the competition.
The Gamecube isn't doing "strongly", as you suggest, it's a dying horse. The general conception of it is that it's a kiddys console and Nintendo doesn't have time to remedy that. Whether a new series of consoles is required is another matter altogether. But the fact is that they're coming and Nintendo need to stay abreast of the competition.
Are we honestly ready to see the next Nintendo console unveiled just year?
I don't know how some of you guys feel, but I can still see the GameCube going as strong as it has done before for another 18 months-to-2 years minimum.
Just because Microsoft and SONY are doing it doesn't mean 'we' have to. That's not Nintendo's style, anyway - whatever they may have said previously.
It is only a starting point, and they do all have to start somewhere, I know.
An impressive line-up of 'Cube games still to come and the Nintendo DS is either here or on its way to us as you read this... What more could you need or even want right now?!
I don't know how some of you guys feel, but I can still see the GameCube going as strong as it has done before for another 18 months-to-2 years minimum.
Just because Microsoft and SONY are doing it doesn't mean 'we' have to. That's not Nintendo's style, anyway - whatever they may have said previously.
It is only a starting point, and they do all have to start somewhere, I know.
An impressive line-up of 'Cube games still to come and the Nintendo DS is either here or on its way to us as you read this... What more could you need or even want right now?!
It's going to be a shark.
I the masks they have that make you dance.
I the masks they have that make you dance.
Dringo you make just as many assumptions as every one else. And stop riding around no your high horse saying "stop speculating". If we didn't speculate what the hell would we talk about?
You have failed to understand what I'm saying - that if Nintendo don't show Revolution at E3 in a way that people will take it seriously as a competitor, that's A BAD THING.
You can't deny that if PS3 and XB360 are either playable, or with concept/finalised design, and the Revolution is just unveiled as a concept with a logo, Nintendo will start off on the back foot. First impressions are EVERYTHING.
How disappointing would it be if the Revolution announcement at E3 was just Reggie saying "Revolution will be revolutionary", saying "it will have gyroscoping controllers, no fixations points, wings" and then showing some people from SEGA saying "I'm really excited by the revolution". That would be crap. Don't pretend it wouldn't be. I doubt there's anybody here who would be satisfied by that, and it would just leave people open to being scpetical. Nintendo can't just reveal the concept, they have to DEMONSTRATE it. Not necessarily in playable form, but they need to SHOW people what it can do, not TELL them. At E3 you can SEE that the PS3 looks great, that the XB360 looks great, but you're just TOLD that the Revolution looks great. It just leaves Nintendo open for loads of criticism. No videos of games, nothing to SHOW suggests that there isn't anything. Whether that's true or not doesn't matter, but people aren't going to just trust Nintendo when they say the console is "great, revolutionary", they need to see it. We need to see it.
I don't know what you're on about with the 3rd party stuff - I mentioned it and I said that the best way to get them on board is to get them easy to use deve kits and to get them to them early. You can't argue with that.
Dringo I never said that Nintendo WOULDN'T show the Revolution properly, it's all hypothetical. I'm saying that if they don't show it properly, it won't be successful. That's my opinion. THis is a discussion board. If we were all robots and only talked about concrete facts and figures it'd just be like you having a conversation with yourself. RUBBISH.
You have failed to understand what I'm saying - that if Nintendo don't show Revolution at E3 in a way that people will take it seriously as a competitor, that's A BAD THING.
You can't deny that if PS3 and XB360 are either playable, or with concept/finalised design, and the Revolution is just unveiled as a concept with a logo, Nintendo will start off on the back foot. First impressions are EVERYTHING.
How disappointing would it be if the Revolution announcement at E3 was just Reggie saying "Revolution will be revolutionary", saying "it will have gyroscoping controllers, no fixations points, wings" and then showing some people from SEGA saying "I'm really excited by the revolution". That would be crap. Don't pretend it wouldn't be. I doubt there's anybody here who would be satisfied by that, and it would just leave people open to being scpetical. Nintendo can't just reveal the concept, they have to DEMONSTRATE it. Not necessarily in playable form, but they need to SHOW people what it can do, not TELL them. At E3 you can SEE that the PS3 looks great, that the XB360 looks great, but you're just TOLD that the Revolution looks great. It just leaves Nintendo open for loads of criticism. No videos of games, nothing to SHOW suggests that there isn't anything. Whether that's true or not doesn't matter, but people aren't going to just trust Nintendo when they say the console is "great, revolutionary", they need to see it. We need to see it.
I don't know what you're on about with the 3rd party stuff - I mentioned it and I said that the best way to get them on board is to get them easy to use deve kits and to get them to them early. You can't argue with that.
Dringo I never said that Nintendo WOULDN'T show the Revolution properly, it's all hypothetical. I'm saying that if they don't show it properly, it won't be successful. That's my opinion. THis is a discussion board. If we were all robots and only talked about concrete facts and figures it'd just be like you having a conversation with yourself. RUBBISH.
Shut it minstrel!
Page: