Support NeoGAF

[D3VI0US]

Fact of the matter is Nintendo is losing marketshare in both the home console and handheld sectors currently. People still factor in the GBA for handhelds but it's releases are slimming down and sales are slowing, it'll probably be dead at the end of 06. Where does that leave Nintendo's handheld marketshare then when it's just DS vs PSP?

Not to mention while the DS is hot and doing well now PSP is a handheld with long term viability. As the prices come down and releases pick up it will become a serious threat to Nintendo and continue to errode their marketshare as any competitor does. Nintendo can always come out with a DS backwards compatible GBA Evo or whatever the kids are calling it these days. Still the PSP is stable and growing despite DS current overwhelming success and E3 will prove it to any doubters.

E3 will also be very telling of Rev's ability to revitalize Nintendo in the console market but they bet the farm on that controller so it better damn well pay off and if it does it could pay off bigger than the DS in the home console market. It wouldn't print money it'd poop diamonds.

 

[Monk]

Don't listen to this crook too much, sometime he is a genius, sometimes a poser

No he is just batshit insane.

I don't believe that at all. Just a few years ago Nintendo said "people don't want to play games online".

No they didn't. They just said that people weren't ready for it. And the majority weren't.


The problem with you is that you are pissed of because you are in the minority and annoyed at Nintendo for being successful with the majority. Perhaps also some insecurity that gaming wont go in the direction you want because of the success of non games and the like. In any case you need to see a psychiatrist.

 

[Amir0x]

No they didn't. They just said that people weren't ready for it. And the majority weren't.


The problem with you is that you are pissed of because you are in the minority and annoyed at Nintendo for being successful with the majority. Perhaps also some insecurity that gaming wont go in the direction you want because of the success of non games and the like. In any case you need to see a psychiatrist.

This is so much bullshit. The MAJORITY does not have to be on top of it for 'people to be ready.' People WERE ready, there was a successful online service last gen on two systems, and NINTENDO wasn't ready.

This is pretty much the bullshittiest bullshit I've read all week.

 

[Scrow]

I don't believe that at all. Just a few years ago Nintendo said "people don't want to play games online". Before the GC was out they were telling us "people don't want to watch movies on their consoles". A decade ago Yamauchi basically said "only losers want to play RPGs".

like i said, out of date rhetoric used by trolls that has no relevance anymore.

Then put me on your ignore list and get it over with.

why would i do that? you might have something worthwhile to say on other topics in other threads either on the gaming or OT forum. I don't hold grudges and i don't use the ignore feature. I find it interesting that you don't even bother to refute that you're a troll though. I suppose that kind of understated honesty is to be admired... if you're imaginative.

 

[Striek]

i think Nintendo have clearly proven that holding the majority of marketshare isn't a prereq to survivability. this idea that holding majority marketshare is essential to a successful business is really quite odd. i'm not sure why people have it rooted in their mentality in regards to the video game industry in particular.

Generation over generation falling unit sales is never a good thing though. Revolution might counter that in the console arena, but you'd be nuts to think Nintendo is 'happy' with this generation. They made money, but they could've made alot more if it wasn't for the stiff competition and their own shitty marketing (or lack thereof).

Will DS outsell the GBA? They aren't off to the best start in NA which is their most important territory. Of course we all know what hasn't been released yet...but then that hadn't being released in a similar timeframe on GBA either.

Nintendo is a smart company. They've branched out and will continue to do so. And anyone here is nuts to think that Sony -and MS if they enter- aren't going to put further pressure on Nintendo on the handheld front. Nintendo won't be sitting there twiddling their fingers thinking they can stave both or either off for generation after generation.

Nintendo isn't doomed, of course not. But their role is changing because the other two companies directly impact them. Nintendo as it is today is shaped by Sony and Microsofts entry into their market(s). They'll continue to change, and thats good for us.

 

[PkunkFury]

It is, but according to this article it can be even cheaper than it already is, yes?

Perhaps your really upset with Nintendo because they are not selling hardware at a loss like Sony?

I agree it's stupid to listen to fanboys defend Nintendo's prices on the grounds that Nintendo is making money. Clearly it would benefit consumers if they sold it at a loss. But if Nintendo's business model doesn't provide a means to make up for what's lost on the hardware like Sony's does, there isn't much we can do.

Anyway it has nothing to do with Nintendo telling people what they want, more or less Nintendo telling poeple how much they should pay for it. You're upset Nintendo isn't giving any handouts. Ultimately price is a function of demand, and if people lose interest in Nintendo products, price will fall like the GC did. Considering the price the DS Lite can fetch on e-bay right now, we're lucky they aren't trying to charge more.

Well, neither on message boards or in stores have I heard anyone say "Y'know, I was thinking about the PSP but the DS has that microphone and I just couldn't pass it up.." The point is taken but really on a feature-comparison basis I don't see a lot of people favoring the DS. Rather I think it's the safe, comfortable software it has that is drawing people in.

and here you hit the nail on the head. Nintendo isn't telling conusmers what they want, consumers are choosing what they want based on software, which seems a sensible reason to pick up a gaming device.

I don't believe that at all. Just a few years ago Nintendo said "people don't want to play games online". Before the GC was out they were telling us "people don't want to watch movies on their consoles". A decade ago Yamauchi basically said "only losers want to play RPGs".

And look where both of these comments got the GC (hint, it's dead). Now they have a successful online network driving their portable's sales. I'll agree they have a history of telling the consumer what they want, but I think the DS is an exception, and is selling accordingly. If people didn't want the DS, they wouldn't buy it, just like they didn't buy the GameCube

At least this thread now has some discussion instead of people posting printsmoney.gif and quoting it with :lol 50 times in a row.

:lol here we can agree

 

[etiolate]

Microsoft told me I wanted online gaming and I wanted to pay for it, which I didn't.

Sony and Microsoft tell me I want HD gaming when I don't even have a HD TV and really don't care to spend all the money involved in that. I don't want HD gaming right now.

Sony tells me I want a media device that makes me rebuy my DVD movies on UMD and use expensive memory sticks to play music. Guess what? I don't.

 

[Blackcherry]

It isn't just about the HDTV race - if the rumored hardware specs are to be belived, the Rev is coming out of the gates a generation behind. If Yamauchi was still behind the wheel I'd be willing to bet it wouldn't even use standard DVDs.

They said for a long time it was going to be a better Gamecube but since Sony and MS are going in a other, natural direction, people thought Nintendo was going to do the same (which was always been that way so it's a normal execptation for pretty much everybody) Nintendo are sure some bold mofos, they take big risk, I like that! But there's one thing that I'm totally sure about those specs........we don't know what thoses chips are made of and how it's going to manifest visually on the display! Maybe something awesome or nothing special, my guess is E3

 

[GaimeGuy]

Microsoft told me I wanted online gaming and I wanted to pay for it, which I didn't.

Sony and Microsoft tell me I want HD gaming when I don't even have a HD TV and really don't care to spend all the money involved in that. I don't want HD gaming right now.

Sony tells me I want a media device that makes me rebuy my DVD movies on UMD and use expensive memory sticks to play music. Guess what? I don't.

but it's teh future. :O

 

[Amir0x]

Microsoft told me I wanted online gaming and I wanted to pay for it, which I didn't.

Online gaming = objectively a good thing. You don't have to play it if you don't want.

Sony and Microsoft tell me I want HD gaming when I don't even have a HD TV and really don't care to spend all the money involved in that. I don't want HD gaming right now.

HD = objectively superior. One day when you do get an HDTV, guess which systems you're going to get a functional benefit from. We DO need it, because it's fucking better. Period. And one day, whether it's ten years in the future, you're going to be able to go back to PS3 and 360 and realize how much better.

This is not some vague concept that has pros and cons. Factually superior.

Anyone who denies this needs to get the mother fuck out of the god damn short pool.

Sony tells me I want a media device that makes me rebuy my DVD movies on UMD and use expensive memory sticks to play music. Guess what? I don't.

They didn't tell you that, they offered the OPTION. Nintendo doesn't OFFER you any options, they fucking deny you the choice. Then they gotta scramble to stay relevant, with garbage products like Play-Yan and Q.

 

[SantaC]

well it didn't take long for the haters to join this thread. Gamers should be happy that nintendo is still around, because that's more competition, and more competition = good for consumers.

 

[D3VI0US]

Content drives platforms and online is a type of platform that if driven by content by Nintendo could have easily attained the levels of success it has currently, last gen if they made the effort. I think they made the right call on online though, they got away with not having it last gen and still eeked out a mediocre performance. Still if they were true innovators they'd have embraced all the potential benefits of online when it was viable.

I don't think they made the right call on HDTV at all, as it's a very different situation from online. It's already here in many households, especially gamer households, and the uptake is much faster than that of broadband I would think. A TV is something everyone can benefit from games aside and as prices come down the numbers will skyrocket and leave Rev looking even more like Gamecube turbo.

My question is where's the common sense? The length and overlap of generations has been growing with this gen being projected to last as many as 10 years, but lets say 7 realisitically. Where will HDTV numbers be then? I'd say at damn close to 90% of households that would ever even buy a Rev. Cheap is good but doing so in the short term means the console won't be viable in the long term.

 

[Striek]

well it didn't take long for the haters to join this thread.

Haters? I count one and a bunch of overly-defensive ninty fans.

 

[Amir0x]

well it didn't take long for the haters to join this thread.

You know what? That's also wrong. People didn't make up FAIRY TALES to justify ridiculous business decisions that are negative for consumers then there would be no 'haters' to have to rip apart the fucktarded statements.

"Sony and MS are doing the same thing, omg they say you need HD!"

No, they say if you HAVE an HDTV your games will look much better. But if not, you can still enjoy it on regular TVs until you upgrade.

Nintendo says if you HAVE an HDTV, too fucking bad -- deal with the shitty shit looking games. There's no choices there, you just have to DEAL with it. That's "telling the consumer what they want", not the other way around

 

[Monk]

This is so much bullshit. The MAJORITY does not have to be on top of it for 'people to be ready.' People WERE ready, there was a successful online service last gen on two systems, and NINTENDO wasn't ready.

This is pretty much the bullshittiest bullshit I've read all week.

LOL Still pissed of the Rev wont support HDTV? . Yes a significant portion of the demographic does matter. Or you can say that X-Band was successful too. Both online services reached out to a fraction of consumers. And as such it didn't maximise profits. That is not to say that Xbox live wasn't a good idea, it has given MS a big step ahead of the competition in terms of online infrastructure.

If Nintendo supported broadband from the start they wouldnt have made as much money from the gc as the inbuilt broadband adapter would have cost more money. Same way the support for HDTV would have cost them much more money because they would need a better graphics and cpu solution.

If you ask any business man, they did the right thing in terms of their business. Same way that Sony did the right thing incoporating mp3 playback and movie playback for the psp as it affects their core business.

 

[Blackcherry]

HD = objectively superior. One day when you do get an HDTV, guess which systems you're going to get a functional benefit from. We DO need it, because it's fucking better. Period. And one day, whether it's ten years in the future, you're going to be able to go back to PS3 and 360 and realize how much better.

It's a factor, yes, but it dosn't change anything to the gameplay! One thing I like about the 360/PS3 specs is that the bottlenecks of this gen are solved! (especially memory). HD is important for some, which is a minority but it's better of course.

 

[marc^o^]

Why did this thread transform into another HD rant against Nintendo?

 

[dog$]

perhaps also some insecurity that gaming wont go in the direction you want because of the success of non games and the like.

Oh I already know that gaming isn't going the direction I want, between the death of arcades and the continuing rise of handhelds and online gaming. Which, as I hope you all note between your well crafted barbs and insults, is not solely Nintendo's fault.

Still, it doesn't mean I can't complain about it when the opportunity presents itself.

Perhaps your really upset with Nintendo because they are not selling hardware at a loss like Sony?

No it really is just as basic as them not making products that I want, though I admit that anger can spill over when people become overzealous in telling me that I don't have a right to complain/play videogames/breathe/etc if I don't buy into their vision as well.

Not that you've asked but what I personally want is very slim and generally boils down to piss-hard challenging games; FZGX fit that bill. What I don't want is a fucking handheld, because I bought a TV for several hundred dollars and I like to use it.

I find it interesting that you don't even bother to refute that you're a troll though.

I've basically been called a troll since 1995; I'm quite used to it and I don't expect it to stop any time soon, especially as long as I find fault with how Nintendo does things.

Why did this thread transform into another HD rant against Nintendo?

I really don't think it has, but either way - what should we be talking about? How great it is that Nintendo can build a new fortress out of money? That we really love the fact that they're profitable? The weather? Please provide us some guidance, O Wise One.

 

[SantaC]

You know what? That's also wrong. People didn't make up FAIRY TALES to justify ridiculous business decisions that are negative for consumers then there would be no 'haters' to have to rip apart the fucktarded statements.

"Sony and MS are doing the same thing, omg they say you need HD!"

No, they say if you HAVE an HDTV your games will look much better. But if not, you can still enjoy it on regular TVs until you upgrade.

Nintendo says if you HAVE an HDTV, too fucking bad -- deal with the shitty shit looking games. There's no choices there, you just have to DEAL with it. That's "telling the consumer what they want", not the other way around

uh yeah I agree about that HDTV thing, but what does HDTV have with this thread anyway? It's kinda weird that the discussion went from income to HDTV.

Why did this thread transform into another HD rant against Nintendo?

I just asked myself that...

 

[Monk]

You know what? That's also wrong. People didn't make up FAIRY TALES to justify ridiculous business decisions that are negative for consumers then there would be no 'haters' to have to rip apart the fucktarded statements.

"Sony and MS are doing the same thing, omg they say you need HD!"

No, they say if you HAVE an HDTV your games will look much better. But if not, you can still enjoy it on regular TVs until you upgrade for atleast$ 100 more!

Nintendo says if you HAVE an HDTV, too fucking bad -- deal with the shitty shit looking games. There's no choices there, you just have to DEAL with it and buy the other consoles. That's "telling the consumer what they want", not the other way around

fixed.

 

[Amir0x]

LOL Still pissed of the Rev wont support HDTV? . Yes a significant portion of the demographic does matter. Or you can say that X-Band was successful too. Both online services reached out to a fraction of consumers. And as such it didn't maximise profits. That is not to say that Xbox live wasn't a good idea, it has given MS a big step ahead of the competition in terms of online infrastructure.

I'm not pissed whatsoever, I just point out bullshit when I see it. Online last gen? Fucking phenomenal. Millions of gamers enjoyed it. Now because they have an atrociously stripped down wifi system on DS that validates the concept? Give me a fucking break. Consumers were ready last gen for it, and there were plenty who hopped on board. Not only that, it helped lay a very real foundation for XBL service to get even better.

Nintendo wasn't ready, because as is typical they are consistently caught with their tails between their legs wondering how in the world they could not be riding the waves of the latest hot consumer trend. Online gaming last gen was one of the most rapidly growing segments of all of gaming.

Note: Sony wasn't necessarily free from blame here either, promising much but delivering little. Still, they were consistent and made sure there were plenty of online experiences to be had.

fixed.

That was the most irrelevant "FIX'D" of all time, and made no sense in the context of what I was saying.

It's a factor, yes, but it dosn't change anything to the gameplay! One thing I like about the 360/PS3 specs is that the bottlenecks of this gen are solved! (especially memory). HD is important for some, which is a minority but it's better of course.

Right. That doesn't really change the fact that HD is fundamentally superior, though.

Edit: And also, this is not another "HD RANT", it's just we've had this discussion about this subject a billion times and people bring up the same outrageous points. It needs to be killed.

 

[Scalemail Ted]

I think I figured out Nintendo's business strategy:


1. Nintendo
2. ????
3. Profit

 

[Monk]

Oh I already know that gaming isn't going the direction I want, between the death of arcades and the continuing rise of handhelds and online gaming. Which, as I hope you all note between your well crafted barbs and insults, is not solely Nintendo's fault.

Still, it doesn't mean I can't complain about it when the opportunity presents itself.

Dont take me seriously. But you really need to take a step back from gaming. If the fact that the gaming industry is not going the direction you want is making you unhappy, you are too close to gaming for your own good. Gaming is mean to be a hobby where you have fun. As long as you keep buying the games you like the market will still cater to you.

 

[etiolate]

Online gaming = objectively a good thing. You don't have to play it if you don't want.



HD = objectively superior. One day when you do get an HDTV, guess which systems you're going to get a functional benefit from. We DO need it, because it's fucking better. Period. And one day, whether it's ten years in the future, you're going to be able to go back to PS3 and 360 and realize how much better.

This is not some vague concept that has pros and cons. Factually superior.

Anyone who denies this needs to get the mother fuck out of the god damn short pool.



They didn't tell you that, they offered the OPTION. Nintendo doesn't OFFER you any options, they fucking deny you the choice. Then they gotta scramble to stay relevant, with garbage products like Play-Yan and Q.

The question Ami, is do I want this stuff? Was I thinking about it before the companies started pushing it? No.

This is what I want:

1. Someone to get creative with the abilities of online gaming instead of giving me the same multplayer game, but pitting me against the general dickcheeses of the internet.

2. Graphics. Hey, I like graphics! I just don't like them as much as companies think I do. HD? Yah someday, off in the future. Do I want to pay for HD and have it be the focus of my games right now? No.

3. A game machine! Not a device that does a bunch of things okay, but not great.

Okay, obviously people understand when Nintendo is sticking their cock in people's mouths. Why you can't understand when Sony and MS do the same, I do not know. The PSP's "options" are all things that Sony as a whole company want you buying that has nothing to do with gaming. UMDs? Memory Sticks? You think they are pushing these things for our benefit? That's Sony cock in your mouth. Microsoft wants to be the one stop home media product. Sony wants the same. Gaming is just their way of getting a foot in the door. I don't really care about that crap.

I buy game systems for gaming. When I look at the PSP and I'm not excited about the lineup... I ask of Sony to give me something. When they respond with a keyboard and internet, are they giving me what I want? According to you and dog I guess they are? Let's try that at an EB. Next time someone comes in asking for a good game, give them a keyboard!

I mean come on.

 

[Frankfurter]

oh so you don't want HD? You would prefer something entirely inferior, so that when you finally do get an HDTV you don't get the pleasure of the nice upgrade?

Actually, PAL and NTSC are both far away from their limit. Turn your TV on and watch (without HD) Formel 1, Indycar or whatever - these cars look a good bit better than the cars and everything else I see in GT 4 or whatever.

HD is objectively superior. It's only a positive thing. Saying 'you don't want online' or 'you don't want CDs' are both just bullshit. Not that Nintendo actually said those things in that way, but the distinction should be clear.

You are making things a bit to easy imo. HD is not only a positive thing. On the positive it gives me a better graphics, on the negative side it costs a lot of money.

 

[Scrow]

I think I figured out Nintendo's business strategy:


1. Nintendo
2. Tell customers what they want
3. Profit

filled in the blank for you

 

[Striek]

Why did this thread transform into another HD rant against Nintendo?

Playing the victim? Seemed more like a HD rant against Sony+MS and Amir0x has effectively bitchslapped the proponents.

It's a factor, yes, but it dosn't change anything to the gameplay! One thing I like about the 360/PS3 specs is that the bottlenecks of this gen are solved! (especially memory). HD is important for some, which is a minority but it's better of course.

Which next-gen console(s) are advancing gameplay and how is it achieved?

 

[NeonZ]

oh so you don't want HD? You would prefer something entirely inferior, so that when you finally do get an HDTV you don't get the pleasure of the nice upgrade?

HD is objectively superior. It's only a positive thing. Saying 'you don't want online' or 'you don't want CDs' are both just bullshit. Not that Nintendo actually said those things in that way, but the distinction should be clear.

How is HD objectively superior? It's not like it's something completely free. If it weren't for HD, next gen games in the 360 and PS3 would have even more resources for the game itself, instead of wasting them for graphics which won't even be avaliable for the majority of the customers, and they still would have graphics beyond any game of this gen.

There's no evidence showing that, in the near future, most of the worldwide market will have switched to HD.

 

[Amir0x]

The question Ami, is do I want this stuff? Was I thinking about it before the companies started pushing it? No.

This is what I want:

1. Someone to get creative with the abilities of online gaming instead of giving me the same multplayer game, but pitting me against the general dickcheeses of the internet.

2. Graphics. Hey, I like graphics! I just don't like them as much as companies think I do. HD? Yah someday, off in the future. Do I want to pay for HD and have it be the focus of my games right now? No.

3. A game machine! Not a device that does a bunch of things okay, but not great.

Doesn't matter what you were thinking of atm. Sony and Microsoft give you the choice, Nintendo gives you the lack of choices. It's that simple. One day when you get an HDTV, even if it's ten years down the line, you're gonna be able to pop those games in and the improvement will be dramatic. One day down the line you'll pop those Revolution games in, and it will still be the same. Inferior. It will always be inferior in terms of graphics, but it's going to be even more marked when you make the transition.

HD is always going to be better. There's no argument to be had. Whether you want it this second or not, that's your choice. That's why you get the option of when you want to upgrade. You can play 360 and PS3 games on SDTVs if you like, you won't get the benefit. Just like you can play Revo games on HDTV. The difference is: when you play Revo games on HDTV, there will be no benefit. When you play 360/PS3 games on HDTV, there will be a huge benefit.

It's the simplest concept in the world, but people repeatedly buy into that bullshit about "not being ready." It doesn't matter if the world is 20, 30, 40 or 90% behind the concept, because it's always going to be better.

Okay, obviously people understand when Nintendo is sticking their cock in people's mouths. Why you can't understand when Sony and MS do the same, I do not know. The PSP's "options" are all things that Sony as a whole company want you buying that has nothing to do with gaming. UMDs? Memory Sticks? You think they are pushing these things for our benefit? That's Sony cock in your mouth. Microsoft wants to be the one stop home media product. Sony wants the same. Gaming is just their way of getting a foot in the door. I don't really care about that crap.

Of course it's going to make them money. Everything Nintendo does makes them money as well. But if I try to play mp3s on my DS, you know what happens.

...

If I try to play mp3s or watch movies on my PSP, it's a nice built-in functional that requires a memory stick. I don't ever have to use it for that, of course. But that's the genius of choices!

I buy game systems for gaming. When I look at the PSP and I'm not excited about the lineup... I ask of Sony to give me something. When they respond with a keyboard and internet, are they giving me what I want? According to you and dog I guess they are? Let's try that at an EB. Next time someone comes in asking for a good game, give them a keyboard!

Bunk point. There are plenty of great games for PSP, in various genres. They just don't appeal to you, as it seems. That's a different point then doing one thing and not offering the other. Sony is doing both.

How is HD objectively superior? It's not like it's something completely free. If it weren't for HD, next gen games in the 360 and PS3 would have even more resources for the game itself, instead of wasting them for graphics which won't even be avaliable for the majority of the customers, and they still would have graphics beyond any game of this gen.

Uh because when I put my 360 and PS3 games on an HD set, they will ALWAYS look better than equivalent games in SD? That's pretty much the definition of objectively superior. An unchanging rule.

But, uh, why do we have to play games on TVs at all? Each console should come with their own screen so we wouldn't have to worry about paying for that added expense. And it should be at cost.

The factor doesn't change suddenly when the majority of people are behind a concept. HD is going to be better when it's a minority idea, it's going to be better when it's a majority idea. It NEVER changes.

HD is not only a positive thing. On the positive it gives me a better graphics, on the negative side it costs a lot of money.

Almost everything that is good costs money. You think HDTVs are going to stay over 1000 bucks forever? No. Mid to end of next generation, you'll be able to get those sets for close to the equivalent of regular TVs. Or whenever, even if it takes ten years for this to happen... HD is STILL going to be superior. And when it finally is in your price range (a perfectly acceptable consideration, I agree), you'll get the benefit out of 360/PS3 because Sony and Microsoft gave you the choice.

 

[PkunkFury]

Content drives platforms and online is a type of platform that if driven by content by Nintendo could have easily attained the levels of success it has currently, last gen if they made the effort. I think they made the right call on online though, they got away with not having it last gen and still eeked out a mediocre performance. Still if they were true innovators they'd have embraced all the potential benefits of online when it was viable..

I agree here; viewing online as a platform driven by the content is a great model to go by. The content is what makes XBox Live so enticing. Nintendo ignored online with the GC, and I feel they suffered for it. Even though online penetration rates weren't very high last gen, cube's lack of support lended itself to negative perception which hurt it in the end. Plus, judging by the reception of DS online, an online GC service may have been all Nintendo needed to revive the dieing console.

Similar things may happen with HD this gen. Most people won't need it, but the fact that rev doesn't support it will still build a bad image

My question is where's the common sense? The length and overlap of generations has been growing with this gen being projected to last as many as 10 years, but lets say 7 realisitically. Where will HDTV numbers be then? I'd say at damn close to 90% of households that would ever even buy a Rev. Cheap is good but doing so in the short term means the console won't be viable in the long term.

Length of generations has been growing? Last I checked, Microsoft cut the XboX short a bit... all in all I wouldn't be surprised if Nintendo switches gears entirely and starts releasing consoles every few years (a la hand held business). It's not unlikely that in 3 years we'll see an HD ready rev. If they start making cheap consoles, they might bank on people being willing to upgrade, and the cost could go down if the remotes don't need to be re-purchased. That isn't necessarily something to be happy about, as supporting HD now would enable early adopters to use it, and prevent us from buying extra systems. But it's a viable explanation as to what they plan to do when the HD era does actually begin.

 

[PkunkFury]

Not that you've asked but what I personally want is very slim and generally boils down to piss-hard challenging games; FZGX fit that bill. What I don't want is a fucking handheld, because I bought a TV for several hundred dollars and I like to use it.

If you don't want a handheld, why come into this thread and complain about Nintendo forcing its ideals on handheld technology??

I've basically been called a troll since 1995.

I would never have thought

 

[GitarooMan]

I just want throw in that HD and graphics in general, can effect gameplay, maybe not in massive ways but one example is in Burnout: Revenge for me at least the clarity and sharpness allows me to make out things better down the road, which allows you to anticipate oncoming cars, etc., better (just a small example). Oh, and this will all change when Nintendo releases an HD-enabled Revolution in 2008.

 

[Frankfurter]

Almost everything that is good costs money.

Playstation CD media was good (although it's loading times were worse than on the N64) and I didn't have to buy anything else to make it work.
The change from NES to SNES/Genesis to PS/N64 to PS2/XBX/GCN/DC in terms of graphics was always "good", but it didn't cost me anymore money than the console itself.

You think HDTVs are going to stay over 1000 bucks forever? No. Mid to end of next generation, you'll be able to get those sets for close to the equivalent of regular TVs. Or whenever, even if it takes ten years for this to happen... HD is STILL going to be superior. And when it finally is in your price range (a perfectly acceptable consideration, I agree), you'll get the benefit out of 360/PS3 because Sony and Microsoft gave you the choice.

I would agree with you, but that's not the current situation. As long as I don't have an HDTV I miss out a part of the graphics because the game is developed to run smoothly in HD resolution and the full power isn't used in SD resolution (same level of details, same level of AA/AF etc., but a lower resolution).
If they wouldn't support HD they could give us comparable graphics (perhaps a tiny bit worse), but everybody would benefit.

 

[Amir0x]

AnyWAY, is the Bloomberg article discussing the same stuff found in the pdf in this thread?

I would agree with you, but that's not the current situation. As long as I don't have an HDTV I miss out a part of the graphics because the game is developed to run smoothly in HD resolution and the full power isn't used in SD resolution (same level of details, same level of AA/AF etc., but a lower resolution).

Hello, this is a GREAT thing! The full power should be used for HD resolution, not inferior SD! This is the most basic of basic concepts.

If they wouldn't support HD they could give us comparable graphics (perhaps a tiny bit worse), but everybody would benefit.

Everybody is benefitting. It's only a matter of when.

 

[etiolate]

I have a three post in dumbass gaming forum debate rule, so I'll finish this up.

Doesn't matter what you were thinking of atm. Sony and Microsoft give you the choice, Nintendo gives you the lack of choices. It's that simple.

How does it not matter?

Let me walk you through this.

1. dog$ makes the point that Nintendo just tells people what they want instead of giving them what they want

2. I say that Sony and Microsoft are doing the same, telling people what they want.

So if it's not something I am wanting and not something I was thinking about before, then that directly applies to the discussion. There is really no way of me knowing what I will want in the future. Before this generation, I wouldn't have known I'd be so burned out on Action games. Now that action, sports and racing games seem to dominate launch lineups, I'm not that excited because I was overloaded the last gen.

And where are you going to go when you get tired of the same old games done in HD? When you want to play new types of games? Try something totally different? When you want to play a large collection of classic games and be able to download them easily?

You see, the Revolution is an option in itself. It's not the same option as Sony, but an option. I wasn't asking for any of this stuff, except maybe the classic gaming.

It's the simplest concept in the world, but people repeatedly buy into that bullshit about "not being ready." It doesn't matter if the world is 20, 30, 40 or 90% behind the concept, because it's always going to be better

You just completely ignore the cost issue here. Is the improved visuals going to be worth all the extra cost? It's not for me. I'd like the option, sure. Yet, it does come down to a cost/reward ratio. HD is not the frickin holy grail.




And for the thread itself, I'm sorry if I caused an accidental derailment.

 

[lancubap]

Generation over generation falling unit sales is never a good thing though. Revolution might counter that in the console arena, but you'd be nuts to think Nintendo is 'happy' with this generation. They made money, but they could've made alot more if it wasn't for the stiff competition and their own shitty marketing (or lack thereof).

Will DS outsell the GBA? They aren't off to the best start in NA which is their most important territory. Of course we all know what hasn't been released yet...but then that hadn't being released in a similar timeframe on GBA either.

Nintendo is a smart company. They've branched out and will continue to do so. And anyone here is nuts to think that Sony -and MS if they enter- aren't going to put further pressure on Nintendo on the handheld front. Nintendo won't be sitting there twiddling their fingers thinking they can stave both or either off for generation after generation.

Nintendo isn't doomed, of course not. But their role is changing because the other two companies directly impact them. Nintendo as it is today is shaped by Sony and Microsofts entry into their market(s). They'll continue to change, and thats good for us.

True. Absolutely True. That's why Nintendo is so stable.

They have changed the approach not only because they want to expand the market, but even because the had no choice. Sony and Microsoft are two big company, with a vast amount of money and a parallel source of revenue that Nintendo doesn't have.
The Innovation and Disrupting the market is the solution to lower the pressure of Sony and Microsoft, and find another source of revenue in another field.

And even if Nintendo has the Best Game Stars of History, they have reach with Gamecube the lowest limit to survive and remain profitable: it is time to change, try to expand the market and try to reach a new audience, but they are still developing games for the Hardcore Gamers. If they succeed to keep the Harcore Audience and to find a new audience (like Nintendo DS) they will become stable and powerful again.

They are exaclty like a chamaleon: they change of the envinronment changes. And this flexibity is one of Nintendo's strength.

 

[ziran]

for me the really great news about nintendo's increased profits is it proves they are heading in the right, profitable direction.

i love ds and have already played it more than any home console this gen and as a result i couldn't be more excited about revolution. so as far as my gaming needs are concerned i'm sure i will love nintendo's future games.

as for the future, i think nintendo's 06-07 fiscal year will be even more profitable than 05-06.

 

[Amir0x]

How does it not matter?

Let me walk you through this.

1. dog$ makes the point that Nintendo just tells people what they want instead of giving them what they want

2. I say that Sony and Microsoft are doing the same, telling people what they want.

So if it's not something I am wanting and not something I was thinking about before, then that directly applies to the discussion. There is really no way of me knowing what I will want in the future. Before this generation, I wouldn't have known I'd be so burned out on Action games. Now that action, sports and racing games seem to dominate launch lineups, I'm not that excited because I was overloaded the last gen.

It doesn't apply because you don't have to use it. You can play the games perfectly fine on SD resolutions. See the distinction? That's the most important central point of this discussion. On Revo, it does not go the opposite way. I can't use HD for Revo games. You can play Revo games on HD sets, sure, but with zero benefit. Nintendo didn't allow the option, see.

And where are you going to go when you get tired of the same old games done in HD? When you want to play new types of games? Try something totally different? When you want to play a large collection of classic games and be able to download them easily?

You see, the Revolution is an option in itself. It's not the same option as Sony, but an option. I wasn't asking for any of this stuff, except maybe the classic gaming.

I agree Revolution is an option, I'm not discounting the system. It's just a distinction. In terms of HD, it's not the same because I can do both. It's my choice.

You just completely ignore the cost issue here. Is the improved visuals going to be worth all the extra cost? It's not for me. I'd like the option, sure. Yet, it does come down to a cost/reward ratio. HD is not the frickin holy grail.

Thus, my example. Whenever you decide to upgrade, whenever it does come into your price range, there are two systems you will get the benefit from thanks to your new HDTV ownership.

for me the really great news about nintendo's increased profits is it proves they are heading in the right, profitable direction.

When was Nintendo in the 'unprofitable' direction? :lol

 

[Archie]

Why is this thread about HD and other silly things? We should be congratulating Nintendo on their constant profitability!

By the way, this is a great reason for Nintendo to leave the hardware market. Without expensive hardware to manufacture, their net income would be higher! (I might be joking)

 

[Frankfurter]

Hello, this is a GREAT thing! The full power should be used for HD resolution, not inferior SD! This is the most basic of basic concepts.

Nope, it's not a great thing. SD is "inferior", but it's still far more capable than what we are seeing at the moment.

 

[norinrad21]

Fact of the matter is Nintendo is losing marketshare in both the home console and handheld sectors currently. People still factor in the GBA for handhelds but it's releases are slimming down and sales are slowing, it'll probably be dead at the end of 06. Where does that leave Nintendo's handheld marketshare then when it's just DS vs PSP?

Not to mention while the DS is hot and doing well now PSP is a handheld with long term viability. As the prices come down and releases pick up it will become a serious threat to Nintendo and continue to errode their marketshare as any competitor does. Nintendo can always come out with a DS backwards compatible GBA Evo or whatever the kids are calling it these days. Still the PSP is stable and growing despite DS current overwhelming success and E3 will prove it to any doubters.

E3 will also be very telling of Rev's ability to revitalize Nintendo in the console market but they bet the farm on that controller so it better damn well pay off and if it does it could pay off bigger than the DS in the home console market. It wouldn't print money it'd poop diamonds.

yeah yeah we've heard it all before

 

[Amir0x]

Nope, it's not a great thing. SD is "inferior", but it's still far more capable than what we are seeing at the moment.

...

There's really nothing more to say, except that we've come to end of sense apparently.

 

[Monk]

Is Nintendo being fair to the consumer by not offering more choices/power at a higher price?



This is the way i see it. I am a consumer that will not be buying an hdtv until next gen. So i dont want to pay for the future proofing of games when I most likely wouldnt be playing them in the future, and past generations of games dont look so bad to me anyway. So by making the console HD compatible and forcing an extra $100 on me, I would be more reluctant to buy the console at launch. And I seriously considering just buying the 360 and ps3 games at lower prices so that i may play on the 360 2 or ps4. With the Rev i feel i can enjoy the games now and hence why i will be buying a rev for that reason. With the other two i would ee like i am not getting the optimum experience possible for the price i paid. It is like the choice betwen going to a shitty cinema with a small screen and no surround and a cinema with a giant screen and full surround sound, except they charge the same price for the movie.

For me personally, i think they are only being fair and giving an option to those of us without hdtv's.



But i can see how Amir0x can feel annoyed at Nintendo. If Nintendo or another company makes compelling software for the Rev, they are essentially forcing us to swallow our pride and buy the console despite our reluctance. If it makes you feel any better i am in the same boat with the 360 and ps3.

 

[Blackcherry]

Why is this thread about HD and other silly things? We should be congratulating Nintendo on their constant profitability!

By the way, this is a great reason for Nintendo to leave the hardware market. Without expensive hardware to manufacture, their net income would be higher! (I might be joking)

Not true. How about the software they sell on their home consoles with no licences fees?

 

[Jonnyram]

Regarding Nintendo's online stance last gen... they tried it on the Famicom, the Super Famicom and the N64, and everytime it fell on its face, so there's no surprise they were cagey last gen. Unfortunately, by some cruel coincidence, last gen is when it took off :lol They seem to be embracing it now though. HDTV, I'm not sure about. It's difficult to take a side when I haven't had full chance to try out HDTV for myself. Higher res is naturally better, but whether it's going to be a necessity this gen, or not, I don't know. I think there's a lot more that can be done to improve graphics without relying on output res.

 

[wazoo]

Why is this thread about HD and other silly things? We should be congratulating Nintendo on their constant profitability!

No, the argument of the day is that the Rev is doomed because in 10 years, everybody will have HD and will be able to play ps3 games in HD.

OF course, the fact that in 10 years, even Nintendo consoles will be HD and nobody will play ps3 games anymore (at least not enough to make this a argument for dismiss consoles sales THIS year) is not important.

 

[Amir0x]

This is the way i see it. I am a consumer that will not be buying an hdtv until next gen. So i dont want to pay for the future proofing of games when I most likely wouldnt be playing them in the future, and past generations of games dont look so bad to me anyway. So by making the console HD compatible and forcing an extra $100 on me, I would be more reluctant to buy the console at launch. And I seriously considering just buying the 360 and ps3 games at lower prices so that i may play on the 360 2 or ps4. With the Rev i feel i can enjoy the games now and hence why i will be buying a rev for that reason. With the other two i would ee like i am not getting the optimum experience possible for the price i paid.

They're not forcing you to pay an extra $100 dollars. Just wait for a pricedrop, just like I am doing.

It is like the choice betwen going to a shitty cinema with a small screen and no surround and a cinema with a giant screen and full surround sound, except they charge the same price for the movie.

This analogy is poor, since HD essentially is the giant screen and full surround sound. Only difference is you can take those movies and also watch it in the shitty cinema until you're ready

For me personally, i think they are only being fair and giving an option to those of us without hdtv's.

They're not giving you any option, except to deal with it.

Higher res is naturally better, but whether it's going to be a necessity this gen, or not, I don't know.

Note that I'm not arguing for it as necessity, just as being superior.

No, the argument of the day is that the Rev is doomed because in 10 years, everybody will have HD and will be able to play ps3 games in HD.

OF course, the fact that in 10 years, even Nintendo consoles will be HD and nobody will play ps3 games anymore (at least not enough to make this a argument for dismiss consoles sales THIS year) is not important.

Don't try to twist words. This has nothing to do with Revo being doomed, only a single unique bad choice. Which, for that matter, I feel has no relevance as to how successful Revolution will be.

"Nintendo consoles will be HD", but not Revolution. "Nobody will play PS3 games anymore", except those who finally buy an HDTV and wanna see how the games look now that they have the benefit

 

[Archie]

Not true. How about the software they sell on their home consoles with no licences fees?

(I might be joking)

 

[Frankfurter]

...

There's really nothing more to say, except that we've come to end of sense apparently.

Apparently...

Please do me a favor: turn your TV on, watch a movie, a DVD or whatever in SD resolution. And then tell me that X360 games look better than that.

 

[Blackcherry]

Is Nintendo being fair to the consumer by not offering more choices/power at a higher price?



This is the way i see it. I am a consumer that will not be buying an HDTV until next gen. So i dont want to pay for the future proofing of games when I most likely would be playing them in the future, and past generations of games dont look so bad to me anyway. So by making the console HD compatible and forcing an extra $100 on me, I would be more reluctant to buy the console at launch. And I seriously considering just buying the 360 and ps3 games at lower prices so that i may play on the 360 2 or ps4. With the Rev i feel i can enjoy the games now and hence why i will be buying a rev for that reason. With the other two i would ee like i am not getting the optimum experience possible for the price i paid. It is like the choice between going to a shitty cinema with a small screen and no surround and a cinema with a giant screen and full surround sound, except they charge the same price for the movie.

For me personally, i think they are only being fair and giving an option to those of us without hdtv.



But i can see how Amir0x can feel annoyed at Nintendo. If Nintendo or another company makes compelling software for the Rev, they are essentially forcing us to swallow our pride and buy the console despite our reluctance. If it makes you feel any better i am in the same boat with the 360 and ps3.

Don't worry about Amir0x, he's joking. He know HDTV is useless with the projector so he is pissed of and try to justify his expensive HDTV