Talked this over with ncwolfpack some and wanted to see what everybody else thought. Given some of the issues in Sony and Microsoft's camps, Nintendo could take a real significant step in reclaiming market share this time around, think about this:

-360's technical issues; still a problem
-360's pitiful performance in Japan, only around 120,000 units at the end of the fiscal year
-360's lack of premier titles until possibly only recently, (Oblivion, maybe Fight Night)
-PS3 significant delay and still unfinalized hardware
-PS3 virtualy no games with any signifigant details
-PS3 potentially 500~600 or greater price tag
-Sony's recent financial problems.
-Microsofts manufacturing and supply issues and most likely Sony also.
-Both seemingly ignore Nintendo, in public at least.
-Rev is drawing interest from influential developers
-Rev virtual console draws hardcore gamers with classic games.
-Nintendo's unexpected success of the DS.
and of course Nintendos strong first party lineup

Now of course Nintendo has its own issues
-Microsoft's head start.
-Porting issues with hardware and controller.
-Graphics whoring media and kid system stigma.
-Weak third party support since the N64.

Discuss.

[Edited on April 20, 2006 at 6:34 PM. Reason : can't type]

4/20/2006 6:29:42 PM

I think that most gamers are going to have a Revolution in addition to either the 360 or the PS3.

4/20/2006 7:25:20 PM

Uh yeah, totally. These 'system wars' threads are really only meant for the gamer that can't afford more than one platform

Not trying to be mean but that's the truth. I've got a 360...love it (btw you forgot GR:AW which rocks the fucking house), and I plan on buying a Rev all day long. And a ps3 eventually - so i mean, Wtf?

4/20/2006 7:30:34 PM

agreed

i'll have a revolution and a ps3

4/20/2006 7:32:00 PM

Wraith et al. i guess that's kinda the point. most folks if they buy two systems will buy a Revolution and one of the other two. Probably won't be a lot of folks buying the PS3 and the 360. With Nintendo you know you'll get good games and support. 90% of the PS2 titles aren't worth shit, and about 75% of the original xbox's are poor.

[Edited on April 20, 2006 at 7:37 PM. Reason : ]

4/20/2006 7:36:43 PM

its all about zelda, mario kart, melee the trinity of nintendo must owns. I'll definitely be buying a revolution, but i haven't decided yet if i'll buy a 360 or a PS3. if guitar hero sequels are gonna continue to be playstation exclusive then i'll probably pick up a ps3. if they cross platforms, then i'll pick up a 360 instead.

4/20/2006 7:42:29 PM

I guess what I'm getting at is that yeah, i've got three systems, but thats not everybody and I can really see a chance for nintendo to pick up some steam here

4/20/2006 8:19:59 PM

system war threads aren't geared at people who only by one system, they're aimed at people who decide to buy most of their games for one system...

companies don't care that you buy the system except as a platform to buy their games for, they don't make money on the systems, they make their money on the games, so gamers can own all 3 systems and STILL choose to support one system more than the rest...

4/20/2006 8:37:28 PM

ive got a few problems, but i agree this should help nintendo.

Quote :

"90% of the PS2 titles aren't worth shit, and about 75% of the original xbox's are poor."

ppl always say this shit, but i mean seriously, tons of gamecube games suck too. the only reason the % is lower is because they've got some guaranteed series AND (the big one) there was crappy support for their system.

Quote :

" -360's technical issues; still a problem -360's pitiful performance in Japan, only around 120,000 units at the end of the fiscal year -360's lack of premier titles until possibly only recently, (Oblivion, maybe Fight Night) -Microsofts manufacturing and supply issues and most likely Sony also. -Rev virtual console draws hardcore gamers with classic games. -Nintendo's unexpected success of the DS."

-technical problems dont seem to be as big of an issue as they were and im sure its getting better by the minute
-they probably dont care that much, thats not a market they're going to crack anytime soon
-as mentioned, GRAW is a huge title and there are plenty of other decent/good games. there arent THAT many that stand out for sucking hardcore.
-supply issues are being continually fixed as well
-im not so sure about the hardcore thing. i play a ton of games and i wouldnt say that it is that big of a draw. it is cool, but ill likely be playing mostly new games no matter the system.
-diff market, probably significant but not so much really

those are just my issues with your list. i DO think that making it so cheap makes it the definate 2nd console for most gamers if they buy one. great marketing plan. premiering around 100-150 makes it 100% worth it to buy even for 1-2 games.

all that said, i think the xbox's headstart means huge things (as i said above) for problematic starts. those kinks will be worked out by the time the rest of the jawnz roll around.

[Edited on April 20, 2006 at 8:51 PM. Reason : i cant wait to try the revolution, but i love my 360 thus far.]

[Edited on April 20, 2006 at 8:52 PM. Reason : .]

4/20/2006 8:50:08 PM

Well the thing that I think will really help the Revolution is the games that are multi-console. Take Resident Evil 5 for example. If you had the opportunity to either play it by just a controller on the PS3 or play it completely interactive with the Revolution's crazy controller thing, which one would you pick? Especially if the Revolution had the option of just plugging in a regular hand controller anyway?

4/20/2006 9:27:28 PM

I think Microsoft is planning to drop Halo 3 for the 360 right before the PS3 launch. As far as it competing with Nintendo, Nintendo just has to convince grown-ups to buy their system. I still don't think they'll sell more than the 360.

4/20/2006 9:44:57 PM

So when did nintendo ever hold the thrown besides 20 years ago

4/20/2006 9:52:19 PM

the n64-psx shift was only 10 years ago

and that's just the mass-market throne. if you're considering profit-per-console, then they've always been on top.

[Edited on April 20, 2006 at 10:10 PM. Reason : more]

4/20/2006 10:07:02 PM

^That and they have had steady dominance in the hand held market since the 80s.

4/20/2006 10:19:37 PM

Quote :

" or play it completely interactive with the Revolution's crazy controller thing"

thats the big IF im waiting on. for all we know those types of games might be done terribly or it just may not be fun. at that point you might as well get it on the more powerful console so it'll look nicer (or have more features).

Quote :

"I think Microsoft is planning to drop Halo 3 for the 360 right before the PS3 launch."

on ign they had some press release that said halo 3 was definately not out till 2007. think they want to make sure this one lives up to expectations. 2 was fun, but not all that new/fresh. who knows though, they may change their minds.

4/20/2006 10:28:07 PM

Way too iffy to call at this point. A month from now I'd have a much better guess at what's going to happen. If Nintendo comes out with a Mario 64-quality killer app for this new system and it can maintain a steady flow of releases, then they should be fine. Xbox 360 might not be killing right now, but the PS2's first year sucked but it had Devil May Cry, MGS2, GTA3 and a bunch of other high-selling titles right when the Xbox and GC hit.

Quote :

"PS3 virtualy no games with any signifigant details"

This is becoming a trend in the industry. Instead of slowly trickling out information, companies hold on to the best details until E3 or another big industry event to generate hype.

The virtual console isn't that big of a draw unless it adds some online functionality with matchmaking and rankings. Everything before the N64 can be downloaded to a PC or PSP.

4/20/2006 11:16:59 PM

Nintendo has a niche, but its not King.

4/21/2006 12:06:42 AM

i already got the nintendo revolution

its pretty good i guess

4/21/2006 12:27:21 AM

nope. Ps3 wins. landslide.

4/21/2006 1:29:38 AM

I've owned 2 game consoles in my entire life:

A Commodore 64, and an original 8-bit NES.

4/21/2006 1:33:23 AM

wow. congratulations buddy. are you poor or something?

4/21/2006 1:36:06 AM

I'm happy w/ my 360 purchase. COD2, Burnout: revenge, and pdz are keeping me busy.

and I plan on getting GRAW and/or Oblivion soon.

and I've had no tech problems whatsoever.

so I'm set.



is it tru that you can play like any nintendo game ever made on a revolution?

4/21/2006 2:08:14 AM

first party and select developers who are providing rights

4/21/2006 2:19:04 AM

Comp gaming is better for FPS and for everything else it's SNES.

4/21/2006 2:35:06 AM

Quote :

"wow. congratulations buddy. are you poor or something?"

just never been much into video games

4/21/2006 2:50:15 AM

The old school nintendo games were much more fun than most of the games out now. I remember

spending hours playing Tecmo Bowl/Mike Tyson's Punchout/etc. I get bored with these new games after

about 10 minutes, maybe it's just me.

4/21/2006 2:53:06 AM

Mike Tyson's Punch Out was killer

I like Silent Service, too

4/21/2006 3:54:21 AM

Quote :

"A Commodore 64"

Since when is this a game console? Granted I did 50% of my pre-Nintendo video game playing on a Commodore 64 (the rest being on the Atari), but there were actual computing and programming processes that could be utilized. That's like saying that my uber Alienware laptop is a gaming console, oh wait.

4/21/2006 7:43:24 AM

Quote :

"The old school nintendo games were much more fun than most of the games out now. I remember spending hours playing Tecmo Bowl/Mike Tyson's Punchout/etc. I get bored with these new games after about 10 minutes, maybe it's just me. "

well, you were younger and that was revolutionary and or the best fun that could be had at the time. playing video games for 10-15 years starts to make you expect more and or have generally less fun with tried and true formats.

they have original NES style games coming out right now...they're called flash games and many of them get old pretty quick too.

i love all my old consoles and still have um. but when i bust um out i only end up playing a select few games for a bit and then packing um back up unless i really had a hankering for something specific.

4/21/2006 8:58:52 AM

I am gonna go on a limb and say nintendo is fucked. I see nothing to compel me to buy anything from nintendo except the new zelda looks good. And we all know zelda is the only mass draw left.

4/21/2006 10:54:24 AM

you guys have fun with that.


i'll be over here on my pc.

playing games you guys will get excited about 2 years from now.

4/21/2006 11:04:38 AM

^^All Nintendo needs is to get more third-party support from some well known older companies like Capcom or Konami. They already have the strongest first-party games of all three systems.

^I play tons of PC games too, but some games were just meant for a console and some were meant for a PC. Additionally, a decent gaming PC is gonna cost a lot more then the expected $100-$200 that a Revolution is expected to cost.

[Edited on April 21, 2006 at 11:13 AM. Reason : ]

4/21/2006 11:12:08 AM

Return to the throne? No. At this point there is no throne.

Nintendo is going to have to rely on quality and price point to get back a big enough share so that the third party support will be worth it for developers.

4/21/2006 11:26:06 AM

Quote :

"Since when is this a game console? Granted I did 50% of my pre-Nintendo video game playing on a Commodore 64 (the rest being on the Atari), but there were actual computing and programming processes that could be utilized. That's like saying that my uber Alienware laptop is a gaming console, oh wait."

exactly!

i say that b/c that's about what I used the Commodore for 99% of the time.

My computer right now is relatively capable (and would've been a pretty strong gaming machine for the time when I built it a few years ago), but I don't have a single game on it.

4/21/2006 12:27:42 PM

does anybody seriously think the revolution will go for $100? I hope I'm wrong, and I really think it would give it a HUGE boost, but it ain't happening.

4/21/2006 12:35:56 PM

Quote :

"Return to the Throne?"

the point of the revolution is not the throne. thats why its such a smart business play.

^not likely, most likely 150-200....

[Edited on April 21, 2006 at 12:38 PM. Reason : lk230k]

4/21/2006 12:38:30 PM

Quote :

"but some games were just meant for a console and some were meant for a PC"

the only games that would be better on console would be party games, which is where nintendo really shines.

But then again, as computer media centers become more popular the only thing keeping the computer from taking over those traditional console functions would be software and hardware.


Now if only someone would come up with a standard way to make games and software for both the console platform and pc at the same time.

And wouldn't that be cool if they could use some standard hardware connectivity to make the hardware work on both console and pc.

Maybe they can give this thing a cool acronym too.

i dunno

maybe XNA ?

4/21/2006 12:50:02 PM

If the Revolution will really be sold for $150, I will buy one. And I have never purchased a game console in my entire life. But I have fond memories of Nintendo and $150 isn't a huge investment. I think a lot of females and non-gamers will feel the same way.

4/21/2006 12:57:57 PM

^see thats what i'm trying to get at, thats how you create market share is not the people who buy 2-3 systems every generation but when you get casual people or kids or adults who want to play every now and again and find themselves buying a single system. Thats whats happened with the PS2 which has such a huge amount more systems out there.

4/21/2006 1:27:14 PM

Quote :

"the only games that would be better on console would be party games"

Have you ever tried to play Mario Brothers 3 with a keyboard? Not that you can't buy a Sidewinder for $10 now, but still, I don't have one.

There are plenty of games that I would rather play on a 36" TV than a 17" or 19" computer screen. There's also the huge draw of not having to install, setup, etc, especially if the Rev has online gameplay (have they said anything final about that? I can't imagine it won't, with the DS's wifi).

4/21/2006 1:41:12 PM

did you even read the rest of my post?




[Edited on April 21, 2006 at 1:43 PM. Reason : also side scrollers work fine on a keyboard.]

4/21/2006 1:42:46 PM

No.

Quote :

"But then again, as computer media centers become more popular the only thing keeping the computer from taking over those traditional console functions would be software and hardware."

I haven't bought one of those big Dell TV/monitor things and a media center PC because you can't type a paper sitting across the room on the couch, and I haven't bought an Alienware PC because all the gaming I need is on the TV. I just think they are two different "experiences" and I hope it stays that way.

4/21/2006 1:47:26 PM

So if you're going to buy 2 seperate devices, one for games and one for work, why not make them both PCs?


You already have the device for work, so why not make the gaming device more functional?

Nothing keeps developers from writing their games for pc, but proprietary systems make it hard for developers to write for multiple platforms.

4/21/2006 2:02:18 PM

next generation console does not equal same shit better graphics.

gg nintendo.

4/21/2006 4:39:39 PM

lol

with nintendo its same shit same graphics

4/21/2006 4:41:17 PM

im interested in Revolutions control scheme

but ill be damned if i buy another system to just play a prettier mario (cliched i know, but RE4 was the only game that made me say "good thing i got a gamecube"...and now its on PS2)

4/21/2006 4:42:12 PM

^^ they're asking the right questions though.

and it's not like they are sacrificing gameplay for exclusive innovation.

4/21/2006 4:47:48 PM

damn fucking graphics whores

4/21/2006 4:48:28 PM

i enjoy nintendos games, not their consoles.

4/21/2006 4:49:18 PM

^^ i expect my games to be the whole package.

4/21/2006 4:59:08 PM