Not if the blu-ray drive and cell pocessors causes the ps3 to sell for $100 more then the xbox360.
M$ will launch HALO 3 and a slew of big titles to counter the ps3 launch. While Sony claims they will launch the PS3 in June of 2006, Im willing to bet Sony wont launch it until Fall of 2006 in the USA to make sure they have enough games and that manufacturing capacity is up to levels to meet the huge demand.
I dont think any console manufacturer can launch a product globally at the same time and historically they seperate launch dates in US, Japan, and Europe by about 6 months.
Nintendo hasn't announced much of anything. We haven't played the games. We haven't seen prices. Comparing meaningless bits of PR - which are all we have to go on - won't give us an accurate picture of how these things will actually play. Let's wait a bit before making conclusions.
Well undercutting price alone at the expense of features isn't going to do it. Nintendo tried that this generation and failed miserably. There games are good but they need to be something far more special than this generation to compete, given there simply weren't enough.
The fact they haven't actually announced anything disturbs me in and of itself given Microsoft and Sony especially put on decent launches. Says something is kind of wrong over there.
As I say though from everything that has shown so far Xbox will sell on the Live and multimedia support, PS3 will sell on its graphics and physics superiority and extensive support. The Revolution will sell on...old games franchises? Just saying they need something more than what they've announced so far or outside the fanboys and kids they won't have much.
Does anyone really think that the xbox 360 is better looking, from an industrial design standpoint?
It's not offensive at all, but it looks so generic, Sony and Nintendo seem more sure of how a game system should look. Not that they neccessarily look better. Well, the Sony does -- like a futuristic appliance. The Nintendo device seems an odd turn for N, they usually have a more toy-like appearance, and this device looks too much like retro consumer electronics. However, they are Japanese, and that language is more meaningful to the Japanese consumer culture. It's not that I think the 360 is uglier, it's that it doesn't really seem to look like anything, it's bland and the wrong color given the shape, looks like a fossil.
Advantages, respectively:
360, out early, let's see what the launch library looks like, might have the right blend of timing and price.
PS3, if Blue-ray takes off, this console may have a lot to do with it, if blue ray takes off, consider it a 1080P player at a phenomenal price. I don't see it hitting the market at a higher price than Xbox, though Xbox may lower price once PS3 launches.
Rev, Nintendo's got a great back catalogue of FUN games. A little multiplayer, on-line, all access, legal, downloadable fun from NES-GC generations? I can see a lot of people being attracted to that. Lowest price of the trio? Trusted by parents?
Nintendo obviously used the E3 spotlight to sell immediately upcoming products and get some more hype up for the current line of existing hardware. They've got a lot of juice left for the GC and the DS, so it makes sense to do it this way.
It's not like they couldn't have gotten some Revolution in-game shots or some video if they had wanted to. I swear to God, people just love to think they know more about everything than Nintendo, meanwhile they continually grow and rake in more profit than Sony and Microsoft on their systems.
Well undercutting price alone at the expense of features isn't going to do it. Nintendo tried that this generation and failed miserably.
I won't address the issue of features, because I don't know which ones you think are important, but overall I don't think that features/price hurt the Gamecube. An unsteady release of games and other poor decisions (purple case, kiddie image, bad PR, totally ineffective advertising, hesitation on online support, apparently poor third-party relations etc.) are more important failings. If done properly (and of course that's a big "if"), I think a low price would help sell Revolution.
Quote:
As I say though from everything that has shown so far Xbox will sell on the Live and multimedia support, PS3 will sell on its graphics and physics superiority and extensive support. The Revolution will sell on...old games franchises? Just saying they need something more than what they've announced so far or outside the fanboys and kids they won't have much.
They do need something more, but it's not as though the details they've omitted don't exist, it's just that we don't know them yet. The effective graphics capabilities of the system, the control method, the sound output and other things, none of which we know about yet, may turn out to be additional selling points.
Quote:
Nintendo device seems an odd turn for N, they usually have a more toy-like appearance, and this device looks too much like retro consumer electronics.
I prefer it to the PS3, but it's certainly not mind-blowing. Iwata did mention that the design was preliminary and showed a few other potential colours.
The backwards compatibility with every nintendo system could potentially be *huge*.
It gives gamers who otherwise never followed nintendo, a cheap(assuming it's cheaper than the xbox 360 and PS3, which it probably will be) small and efficient, low impact, minimal hassle method of playing all the games they always missed.
Of course, the game downloads my be limited to nintendo produced titles, which would be fairly lame, but if it isn't, and if thousand of NES and SNES and N64 titles were easily made available to the masses, that's pretty awesome.
if thousand of NES and SNES and N64 titles were easily made available to the masses, that's pretty awesome.
That would just kill the other two systems in terms of use in my home. Having access to all of the old NES/SNES/N64 games I miss would be like a dream come true.
What if this games service works essentially the same for new, cutting edge games. Could this be a subscription model for Ã* la carte gaming?
My other revolutionary idea was what if Dev Tools were openly available and you could download user-developed games from the same service you get your Super Mario Brothers 3. Someone would want $$ for something though.
Nintendo just wont get the developers and publishers like M$ and Sony will considering that they will have Nintendo competing against them with tons of cheap games.
I dont think Nintendo is going anywhere but they will no longer have any real significant 3rd party support and instead will milk their great franchises with new variations and recycle all those great old games for a few bucks each.
Again I dont think you are going to see really any significant difference in graphics and offline gameplay between the 3 systems. The reason why I give M$ the adavantage is that not only will they make money on games but LIVE will give them new revenue channels through new subscription services and options that honestly neither Sony or Nintendo will be able to touch for many years.
I personally think all three systems will have great games that will look incredible but if M$ could under cut the competition by $50-$100 assuming they will make it back up on subscription services and content I would be very concerned if I was Sony or Nintendo.
Nintendo obviously used the E3 spotlight to sell immediately upcoming products and get some more hype up for the current line of existing hardware. They've got a lot of juice left for the GC and the DS, so it makes sense to do it this way.
It's not like they couldn't have gotten some Revolution in-game shots or some video if they had wanted to. I swear to God, people just love to think they know more about everything than Nintendo, meanwhile they continually grow and rake in more profit than Sony and Microsoft on their systems.
I'd love to see a split on how much the GC has actually raked in for them compared to the handheld market. There is no question that Nintendo has a decent business model but right now it is their dominance in handhelds that carries them. You do realise a number of major retailers around the world have dumped the GC from at least some stores because the sales were so poor?
I suspect if you were to look behind the scenes you'd find they haven't finalised most of their design yet, which is bad on so many different levels. Just as I suspect Sony's online plans are also very preliminary. I can see 4 reasons they would have put emphasis on the current generation.
1. The next gen is still not final or developed enough to show. I suspect that's likely the case.
2. They've done something so revolutionary that even showing screenshots of upcoming titles or a video might tip off competitors and they would rather not. I seriously doubt that.
3. They have made a decision to focus on their strength and push their handhelds and try to make up some sales prior to the next gen of systems.
4. They are content to not show a thing and let Microsoft + Sony steal the thunder and free press that they are currently getting given it will be a year before the next gen console war really starts so may as well make money now.
With the exception of 2 I can see all of those being possible and there are reasons you might choose each. Each company focused on their strengths at E3 and it is a statement that Nintendo emphasised existing franchises, past consoles, and their handhelds.
Time will tell but I think that Nintendo will fall to a distant 3rd in the next generation and continue to lock themselves into their own franchises, which are deeply profitable for them. Will it end their life? Nope but they aren't going to compete awfully well in the adult gaming market, which is the fastest expanding.
I dont think Nintendo is going anywhere but they will no longer have any real significant 3rd party support and instead will milk their great franchises with new variations and recycle all those great old games for a few bucks each.
Developers will go to where the money is. If the Revolution does well you'll see them come back in droves.
I understand your belief that neither Sony nor Nintendo will catch up with Live for a while, but I wouldn't make any definite statements about it. If they take it seriously, we really don't know what they will do.
Telomar:
Quote:
I'd love to see a split on how much the GC has actually raked in for them compared to the handheld market.
The GC makes money. Even at $99 it turns a profit as a piece of hardware. It doesn't make as much money as the Gameboy, but I don't see what the problem with that is. If the PSP blows up and makes more than the PS2 will Sony suddenly become a piece of crap? Nonsense.
Quote:
You do realise a number of major retailers around the world have dumped the GC from at least some stores because the sales were so poor?
I don't doubt it at all.
Quote:
1. The next gen is still not final or developed enough to show. I suspect that's likely the case.
2. They've done something so revolutionary that even showing screenshots of upcoming titles or a video might tip off competitors and they would rather not. I seriously doubt that.
3. They have made a decision to focus on their strength and push their handhelds and try to make up some sales prior to the next gen of systems.
4. They are content to not show a thing and let Microsoft + Sony steal the thunder and free press that they are currently getting given it will be a year before the next gen console war really starts so may as well make money now.
I'd say it's 3 & 4. They might claim #2, but I have an impossible time believing it. 1 doesn't really make sense either; it's not like they started working on Revolution yesterday.
Comments
Originally posted by MarcUK
The 360 will do well, until the PS3 is released.
Not if the blu-ray drive and cell pocessors causes the ps3 to sell for $100 more then the xbox360.
M$ will launch HALO 3 and a slew of big titles to counter the ps3 launch. While Sony claims they will launch the PS3 in June of 2006, Im willing to bet Sony wont launch it until Fall of 2006 in the USA to make sure they have enough games and that manufacturing capacity is up to levels to meet the huge demand.
I dont think any console manufacturer can launch a product globally at the same time and historically they seperate launch dates in US, Japan, and Europe by about 6 months.
Originally posted by Mac The Fork
Nintendo hasn't announced much of anything. We haven't played the games. We haven't seen prices. Comparing meaningless bits of PR - which are all we have to go on - won't give us an accurate picture of how these things will actually play. Let's wait a bit before making conclusions.
Well undercutting price alone at the expense of features isn't going to do it. Nintendo tried that this generation and failed miserably. There games are good but they need to be something far more special than this generation to compete, given there simply weren't enough.
The fact they haven't actually announced anything disturbs me in and of itself given Microsoft and Sony especially put on decent launches. Says something is kind of wrong over there.
As I say though from everything that has shown so far Xbox will sell on the Live and multimedia support, PS3 will sell on its graphics and physics superiority and extensive support. The Revolution will sell on...old games franchises? Just saying they need something more than what they've announced so far or outside the fanboys and kids they won't have much.
It's not offensive at all, but it looks so generic, Sony and Nintendo seem more sure of how a game system should look. Not that they neccessarily look better. Well, the Sony does -- like a futuristic appliance. The Nintendo device seems an odd turn for N, they usually have a more toy-like appearance, and this device looks too much like retro consumer electronics. However, they are Japanese, and that language is more meaningful to the Japanese consumer culture. It's not that I think the 360 is uglier, it's that it doesn't really seem to look like anything, it's bland and the wrong color given the shape, looks like a fossil.
Advantages, respectively:
360, out early, let's see what the launch library looks like, might have the right blend of timing and price.
PS3, if Blue-ray takes off, this console may have a lot to do with it, if blue ray takes off, consider it a 1080P player at a phenomenal price. I don't see it hitting the market at a higher price than Xbox, though Xbox may lower price once PS3 launches.
Rev, Nintendo's got a great back catalogue of FUN games. A little multiplayer, on-line, all access, legal, downloadable fun from NES-GC generations? I can see a lot of people being attracted to that. Lowest price of the trio? Trusted by parents?
Nintendo obviously used the E3 spotlight to sell immediately upcoming products and get some more hype up for the current line of existing hardware. They've got a lot of juice left for the GC and the DS, so it makes sense to do it this way.
It's not like they couldn't have gotten some Revolution in-game shots or some video if they had wanted to. I swear to God, people just love to think they know more about everything than Nintendo, meanwhile they continually grow and rake in more profit than Sony and Microsoft on their systems.
Well undercutting price alone at the expense of features isn't going to do it. Nintendo tried that this generation and failed miserably.
I won't address the issue of features, because I don't know which ones you think are important, but overall I don't think that features/price hurt the Gamecube. An unsteady release of games and other poor decisions (purple case, kiddie image, bad PR, totally ineffective advertising, hesitation on online support, apparently poor third-party relations etc.) are more important failings. If done properly (and of course that's a big "if"), I think a low price would help sell Revolution.
As I say though from everything that has shown so far Xbox will sell on the Live and multimedia support, PS3 will sell on its graphics and physics superiority and extensive support. The Revolution will sell on...old games franchises? Just saying they need something more than what they've announced so far or outside the fanboys and kids they won't have much.
They do need something more, but it's not as though the details they've omitted don't exist, it's just that we don't know them yet. The effective graphics capabilities of the system, the control method, the sound output and other things, none of which we know about yet, may turn out to be additional selling points.
Nintendo device seems an odd turn for N, they usually have a more toy-like appearance, and this device looks too much like retro consumer electronics.
I prefer it to the PS3, but it's certainly not mind-blowing. Iwata did mention that the design was preliminary and showed a few other potential colours.
It gives gamers who otherwise never followed nintendo, a cheap(assuming it's cheaper than the xbox 360 and PS3, which it probably will be) small and efficient, low impact, minimal hassle method of playing all the games they always missed.
Of course, the game downloads my be limited to nintendo produced titles, which would be fairly lame, but if it isn't, and if thousand of NES and SNES and N64 titles were easily made available to the masses, that's pretty awesome.
Originally posted by Wrong Robot
if thousand of NES and SNES and N64 titles were easily made available to the masses, that's pretty awesome.
That would just kill the other two systems in terms of use in my home. Having access to all of the old NES/SNES/N64 games I miss would be like a dream come true.
My other revolutionary idea was what if Dev Tools were openly available and you could download user-developed games from the same service you get your Super Mario Brothers 3. Someone would want $$ for something though.
I dont think Nintendo is going anywhere but they will no longer have any real significant 3rd party support and instead will milk their great franchises with new variations and recycle all those great old games for a few bucks each.
Again I dont think you are going to see really any significant difference in graphics and offline gameplay between the 3 systems. The reason why I give M$ the adavantage is that not only will they make money on games but LIVE will give them new revenue channels through new subscription services and options that honestly neither Sony or Nintendo will be able to touch for many years.
I personally think all three systems will have great games that will look incredible but if M$ could under cut the competition by $50-$100 assuming they will make it back up on subscription services and content I would be very concerned if I was Sony or Nintendo.
Originally posted by groverat
Nintendo obviously used the E3 spotlight to sell immediately upcoming products and get some more hype up for the current line of existing hardware. They've got a lot of juice left for the GC and the DS, so it makes sense to do it this way.
It's not like they couldn't have gotten some Revolution in-game shots or some video if they had wanted to. I swear to God, people just love to think they know more about everything than Nintendo, meanwhile they continually grow and rake in more profit than Sony and Microsoft on their systems.
I'd love to see a split on how much the GC has actually raked in for them compared to the handheld market. There is no question that Nintendo has a decent business model but right now it is their dominance in handhelds that carries them. You do realise a number of major retailers around the world have dumped the GC from at least some stores because the sales were so poor?
I suspect if you were to look behind the scenes you'd find they haven't finalised most of their design yet, which is bad on so many different levels. Just as I suspect Sony's online plans are also very preliminary. I can see 4 reasons they would have put emphasis on the current generation.
1. The next gen is still not final or developed enough to show. I suspect that's likely the case.
2. They've done something so revolutionary that even showing screenshots of upcoming titles or a video might tip off competitors and they would rather not. I seriously doubt that.
3. They have made a decision to focus on their strength and push their handhelds and try to make up some sales prior to the next gen of systems.
4. They are content to not show a thing and let Microsoft + Sony steal the thunder and free press that they are currently getting given it will be a year before the next gen console war really starts so may as well make money now.
With the exception of 2 I can see all of those being possible and there are reasons you might choose each. Each company focused on their strengths at E3 and it is a statement that Nintendo emphasised existing franchises, past consoles, and their handhelds.
Time will tell but I think that Nintendo will fall to a distant 3rd in the next generation and continue to lock themselves into their own franchises, which are deeply profitable for them. Will it end their life? Nope but they aren't going to compete awfully well in the adult gaming market, which is the fastest expanding.
I dont think Nintendo is going anywhere but they will no longer have any real significant 3rd party support and instead will milk their great franchises with new variations and recycle all those great old games for a few bucks each.
Developers will go to where the money is. If the Revolution does well you'll see them come back in droves.
I understand your belief that neither Sony nor Nintendo will catch up with Live for a while, but I wouldn't make any definite statements about it. If they take it seriously, we really don't know what they will do.
Telomar:
I'd love to see a split on how much the GC has actually raked in for them compared to the handheld market.
The GC makes money. Even at $99 it turns a profit as a piece of hardware. It doesn't make as much money as the Gameboy, but I don't see what the problem with that is. If the PSP blows up and makes more than the PS2 will Sony suddenly become a piece of crap? Nonsense.
You do realise a number of major retailers around the world have dumped the GC from at least some stores because the sales were so poor?
I don't doubt it at all.
1. The next gen is still not final or developed enough to show. I suspect that's likely the case.
2. They've done something so revolutionary that even showing screenshots of upcoming titles or a video might tip off competitors and they would rather not. I seriously doubt that.
3. They have made a decision to focus on their strength and push their handhelds and try to make up some sales prior to the next gen of systems.
4. They are content to not show a thing and let Microsoft + Sony steal the thunder and free press that they are currently getting given it will be a year before the next gen console war really starts so may as well make money now.
I'd say it's 3 & 4. They might claim #2, but I have an impossible time believing it. 1 doesn't really make sense either; it's not like they started working on Revolution yesterday.