Curse

Alura Pyro · Sep 19, 2005, 10:53 PM // 22:53

ohh great the people living around me think I'm wierd enough without seeing me in the livingroom using my remote as a sword (they called the cops when we practiced kendo once)

Danny_Rowe · Sep 19, 2005, 11:03 PM // 23:03

I think its a great idea , but i cant get the button lay outm I mean , looks like you have to think about what you press, then look at the controller to find the button, this could be a downfall i guess, but thumbs up nintento. althought i was expecting gloves and a head unit for VR

Sir Skullcrasher · Sep 19, 2005, 11:12 PM // 23:12

At least Nintendo controller look nice. i mean look at PS3 upcoming console.. the controller is like a boomerang.

Starbeast · Sep 19, 2005, 11:27 PM // 23:27

I think dreamcast was the first console i owned that i thought truely had a unique controller i liked. you couldn't beat the touch sensitive triggers or the lcd memory card thingies that allowed you to pick football plays against your buddy without him knowing which you had chosen. To bad the batteries died out so quickly along with the console its self.

sasafetch · Sep 20, 2005, 05:36 AM // 05:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starbeast

I think dreamcast was the first console i owned that i thought truely had a unique controller i liked. you couldn't beat the touch sensitive triggers or the lcd memory card thingies that allowed you to pick football plays against your buddy without him knowing which you had chosen. To bad the batteries died out so quickly along with the console its self.

Lol! too true! I have a dreamcast as well. I still think best controller is the PS2 though...it's nice and simple. Well, now that I think about it the Revolution controller isn't a horrible idea. After watching the video on IGN it makes A LOT more sense and seems pretty cool. FPS games, for example, are gonig to be MUCH more easier to play now. Another cool thing is the backwards compatibility. Since the Revolution can play gamecube games, it has a port for the gamecube controller. Nintendo is still supporting the gamecube controller on the Revolution for developers. Thus, players who want the good old controller still have it. Another cool thing is that when you put the revolution controller on its side it's an nes controller. So, perhaps Nintendo knows what it's doing after all...

Vermilion Okeanos · Sep 20, 2005, 05:43 AM // 05:43

nintendo revolution controller... I see too many potential... I just wonder if those game designer are as smart as said to be...

that expansion port alone give don't know how many ways to play different games...

It is all up to imagination.

No imagination = No future.

If Nintendo survive long enough... perhaps they are the first to come across the real deal virtual reality... they tried it once, wasn't great thou. VR red anyone?

Alone) · Sep 20, 2005, 05:47 AM // 05:47

As long as they make a new Super Smash Bros. that's better than Melee, I'll be happy.

I'm still loyal to Play Station.

Alura Pyro · Sep 20, 2005, 04:06 PM // 16:06

you have to play the new smash brothers with a remote control with a plastic hammer attatched that you hit things with

Hemiipowered · Sep 20, 2005, 06:40 PM // 18:40

Coming soon....Nintendo Revolucion.....Load It Up With S****....play S****....and when u get pissed at it....throw the S***ty controller at the wall!....haha sry guys....thought it was funny....but nintendo wont get a sale with only 1 out of every 20 games respectable of rentage....look on gaming sites on the top 10....whens the last time u saw a game cube title on there? just my opinion....no offence to anyone whos a living breathing nintendo fan

Delphi Maestro · Sep 20, 2005, 10:49 PM // 22:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hemiipowered

Coming soon....Nintendo Revolucion.....Load It Up With S****....play S****....and when u get pissed at it....throw the S***ty controller at the wall!....haha sry guys....thought it was funny....but nintendo wont get a sale with only 1 out of every 20 games respectable of rentage....look on gaming sites on the top 10....whens the last time u saw a game cube title on there? just my opinion....no offence to anyone whos a living breathing nintendo fan

ok tat just doesn't make any sense, and it has nothin to do with the topic.. which is about the Revolution Controller...
its true that gc has abysmal sales, but tat doesn't mean that Rev is gonna suck...

Alura Pyro · Sep 20, 2005, 10:52 PM // 22:52

look at the bright side if playing ps3 and attacked by ninjas you have a boomerang to defend yourself

heist23 · Nov 16, 2005, 03:11 AM // 03:11

well, for those of you who think that this will be a total failure/fiasco for nintendo:

look at nintendogs. who the hell thought it'd be so damn brilliant?!

look at the legend of Zelda: the Wind Waker. everyone thought that the cel-shaded Link looked like a ****in' dumbass. who's laughing now? (well, maybe some. but seriously.)

most of the things that Nintendo has come up with has looked incredibly STUPID but ended up being genius.

as for now, time will tell.

lyra_song · Nov 16, 2005, 03:24 AM // 03:24

http://nintendoinsider.com/site/EEEZuAypVuTuOJPzyb.php

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nintendo Versus Everyone: The Business of Business

Tuesday, May 31 2005 @ 10:34 PM UTC
Contributed by: David

Videogames are big business. We like to make that point clear when talking about games. The fact that entertainment software generates a lot of money helps us justify our interest and even our play.

Strangely, journalistic reporting and academic discourse on the subject of business trails almost every other aspect of game thinking. You’re as likely to find good Neo-Marxist feminist game criticism as you are in depth analysis of the medium as a business.

We see plenty of reporting and regurgitation of marketing hype. And we could subsist on an endless diet of wild speculation. But we rarely get the kind of business analysis that we need.

This gap was painfully obvious to me post-E3. Because while everyone was busily laying bets on the horse race between Sony and Microsoft for the dominance of the next generation of gaming, Nintendo was quietly disregarded on the side.

Business-wise, this was weird. Because as far as I can tell, Nintendo is the business story to watch. And strangely enough, you don’t have to try very hard to see why. I can only conclude that most of us are not looking at all.

Let me preface the following remarks with a couple of qualifiers. First, I am not a Nintendo fanboy. Like a lot of people, I’ve been trying to figure out Nintendo’s strategy, and wondering why they don’t do certain things. Like everyone else, I sat in the Nintendo press conference at E3 and said, “That’s it? Where’s the ‘Revolution’?” Also, I don’t consider myself a business analyst or even a biz reporter.

But I like to talk about business. And I have become convinced that the Nintendo story is emblematic of a chronic under-reporting of real business stories.. Let me explain in some detail.

Brass in pocket: Profit is Profit

Since videogames are a big business, it’s a good idea to understand how the game of business is scored. And the most impressive stat of all is net profit—the amount of money left over after the business has done what it has to do. This isn’t money collected from customers, but still owed to suppliers, lenders or the taxman. This is cash, free and clear. This is the company’s walking around money that either gets paid out to stockholders or saved for investment in new business opportunities.

In this light, it’s odd how few game commentators seem to understand just how profitable Nintendo really is. With a net margin of over 20%, Nintendo is a financial rock star. Just by way of comparison, General Electric, that monster global conglomerate whose executives write the books about corporate leadership that other Fortune 500 execs read, clocks in with a net margin of 11% Nintendo’s business engine is so efficient that even though they sell far less than Sony, they make, bottom line, about as much as all of Sony, Yes, that’s right. Little Nintendo generates about as much cash as giant Sony—electronics, movies, the works. (For a bunch of good financial data on this subject in one place, see PCVSConsole).

Now there are a number of lessons in this. But let me point to the most obvious:

When looking at the current console war, it’s important to keep in mind that Sony is a big company that does well on its games and film subsidiaries, but has been taking big losses in electronics. Microsoft is a very, very profitable software company that has so far taken large losses in its entertainment division. And Nintendo is a reasonably large company that has continued to make money with no obvious financial liabilities. As businesses, these three companies have different strengths and weaknesses. But none is the overwhelming leader from a business position.

Near term success dictates that Sony needs to hold market share and see the industry grow. Microsoft needs to gain market share and see the industry grow or else settle on an Reagan Cold War strategy—using the ample MS cash warchest, pursue deficit spending in it’s Xbox product line until the enemy, in this case Sony, faces financial collapse. All Nintendo really needs to do is just keep doing what it’s doing.

The platitudes and proclamations of the gaming press to the side, Nintendo is healthy. Even with the PSP in the market, Nintendo seems to be doing just fine.

And even though the announcement at E3 of the Game Boy Micro was greeted with a certain amount of skepticism and curious musing by the game press, from a business strategy standpoint, I expect that it will turn to pure gold.

Without making a significant investment in R&D or manufacturing, Nintendo repackages current technology and resells it at what, I would expect, is a healthy margin. Not only will the Micro put GBA technology in new hands, inevitably large numbers of the units will find their way into the shirt pockets and key chains of many current GBA owners. Not only will Nintendo make money on this new hardware product, it will stimulate additional demand for GBA software.

While Sony and Microsoft spent E3 showing off what billions of dollars of investment can do at their press events, Nintendo was demonstrating how minimal investment can generate cash.

That folks, is called smart business.

Yes, it makes for dull news. And the GBM can’t come close to generating the excitement of a PS3 or an Xbox 360. But this is where the fan-fueled press keeps going off the rails. We get excited about big ideas and the glitz and glory that colossal investments can create. But we miss the simple, sober successes of a solid business plan.

Hiding in Plain Sight: Market Differentiation

The chiming, chattering agreement of the game press these days is that Sony is going to beat Microsoft, but that Microsoft is going to take a chunk out of Sony. No one seems to think much about the next Nintendo hardware platform. And unless the big N surprises everyone with direct neural implants or something, I expect that the fan’s attention will continue to focus on the slugfest between Sony and MS.

But I think this is a misread and a gross misunderstanding of this market. Today Nintendo commands about 10% of the videogame market, give or take. This is important because Nintendo is terribly profitably, as we discussed, with this little slice of the game business. They have a business that has evolved to thrive at the edge of the market.

If you are Nintendo, you dream about taking over the lead in the market once again. But the reality is, you have a business built such that it could last 500 years doing just what it is doing, making cash hand over fist on a tenth of the market.

Further, you watched as Sega bet the farm on the Dreamcast and lost. You understand the opportunity and risk of ambition.

So, what do you do?

One obvious strategy is that you don’t do anything. You launch your next system with adequate power and adequate features, but you don’t worry about competing with Sony or Microsoft. In fact, you do everything you can to not compete.

In the war between Coke and Pepsi, non-cola sales go up. All the money Coke and Pepsi spend trying to displace each other in the market generates enormous amounts of interest in soda pop. But some people don’t want cola. So they buy root beer, and lemon-flavored fizzy water. Not-a-cola doesn’t have to spend the marketing dollars in the cola wars, but benefits from the attention generated by the prize fight—majority control of the soda market via cola.

It will work out the same way in the videogame business. Microsoft will increase Sony’s costs. Sony has to invest more in hardware R&D, marketing and game development. Sony and Microsoft then engage in a battle of the titans, fighting for market dominance. All Nintendo needs to do it stay out of the way. It just needs to be not-Sony and not-Microsoft. It just needs to be Nintendo.

How can they do it? Well, here’ s a couple of strategies that would probably work.

1. Launch a competitive, low cast product. If the Revolution turns out to be a $150 machine that generates graphics similar enough to the PS3 and the 360 that the layman can’t easily tell the difference, then Joe and Jane Casual Gamer will probably buy a Nintendo machine.
2. Market to the core audience—fan boys and families. Whatever Sony and Microsoft do, they are going to have a hard time convincing mom or dad that their system is good for the kids. The kids will beg for a PS3 to play the latest blood-soaked adventure from Rockstar or to get their mitts on Halo for the 360. But parents are going to be happier buying junior a Nintendo machine with a Mario game. The fan boy angle is already in works with the announcement that the Revolution will play games from entire history of Nintendo in emulation.
3. Produce a portable console. We know the Revolution will be small. But will it be small enough to haul around? If so, every kid in America will want a Revolution in their backpack. We’ve seen the 360. It’s a classy piece of hardware. But it’s a component for the home entertainment system. And if the PS3 is as powerful as people claim, it will probably be the size RD-D2. A portable console would be cool. And would sell.
4. Don’t do anything special with the hardware, just keep producing triple AAA titles. If you want Mario, Metroid or Starfox, you’ll have to buy a Nintendo.

Now the common objection to these strategies is that Nintendo will never displace Sony or Microsoft following these paths. And that’s partially right. None of these strategies is likely to do much to expand Nintendo’s current market share. But remember, if Nintendo sticks with profitability and 10% of a growing market, then they will be cash rich and competitive for the foreseeable future.

And this is where long-term thinking comes in.

Microsoft lost billions on the Xbox. They very well may lose money this round, depending on how fast the market grows and how much of the market they can grab. Sony has made lots of money on games. But facing a significant loss in market share, they will need to see a massive growth in the market to keep their net profits anywhere near where they have been.

So, a plausible scenario emerges that this generation of console wars exhausts Sony and Microsoft. Any financial weakness this round diminishes their ability to compete next round. And what happens while the dinosaurs battle to the death? That’s right. The profitable niche players come out. Enter the age of the mammals. By 2010 Nintendo could find a moment of opportunity, spend a lot and lead the next, next generation of videogaming technology.

This is a lot of speculation. But what we know is startling. Microsoft will attack Sony’s market. Someone is going to lose out unless the game market grows at a more phenomenal pace than it has to date. J Allard stood up at E3 and predicted a population of 1 billion gamers worldwide in the next generation. That’s triple or quadruple (or more) of the current population. Possible, but unlikely without opening the former pirate markets of Latin America and China.

So while Sony and Microsoft fly into the face of a risky future, Nintendo doesn’t have to worry about winning this round. They only need to survive. And by Microsoft attacking Sony, Nintendo really doesn’t have to do much to stay in the game. Just keep doing what they have been doing.

And, perhaps not so surprisingly, that’s what they’ve been saying all along, “We’re a game company. We make cool games. We’ll keep making new games. That is all.”

It’s the software stupid

My favorite disclaimer for all console war stories is that “Well, the games are what’s going to matter in the end.” And that’s is so perfectly right and wrong at the same time.

What’s wrong with the idea? Look no further than the Sega Dreamcast. Without a doubt, this system had great games. For a year or two, arguably it had the best games on any platform. But it failed, none-the-less. Sony convinced the market to wait for the PS2. So, the story is always greater than games. And the success of marketing, market position and the dream of new hardware matters as much as games.

It also seems ironic that many times the same story that claim the next generation is all about the games also picks the PS3 as the next generation winner. That’s odd since we have seen exactly zero PS3 games so far.

I think the PS3 will come out on top this generation because of brand identity. Most people know that the PlayStation is the big videogame machine. So when faced with conflicting information, the average consumer will buy brand. And at this point, Sony is brand.

But there is some wisdom to the software story, when you consider it in conjunction with brand. Madden sells because it is Madden. Even after EA spent hundreds of millions of dollars acquiring an exclusive license for the NFL brand, they kept the name of the game Madden. Why? Because in the world of videogames, Madden is NFL. To drop the Madden name would certainly be to lose sales.

So, who has brand in videogames? There are plenty of brands out there. But no software brand is as strong as Nintendo’s Just to say a game is a Nintendo game is to give it a shine. Why do people cheer at the Nintendo E3 press conference? Because they are die hard fans. Generation after generation of hardware, sequel after sequel, Nintendo game buyers return to the stores.

Where the “it’s the software stupid” argument leads is toward breakout hits—Grand Theft Auto and Halo—and to software brands, Madden and Nintendo. And if software brand matters in the next generation, who is going to benefit? You can bet Nintendo will be at the front of that line.

What do I make out of all of this? Am I predicting the rise of Nintendo in the coming golden age of videogaming? Not really. Do I hate Sony and Microsoft and want to see them fail? Hardly. In fact, I think the opposite. I’d like to see these game companies succeed and prosper. I think competition is healthy and that financial cataclysm helps no one.

Still, I think that the press has grossly underestimated Nintendo’s current position. I expect that Nintendo will actually grow in the next generation. And while I do not expect them to take a market leader role in the short term, I think it is entirely possible that they will generate more profit than their bigger, louder, competitors.

The Bottom Line

More than anything, I wanted to use this little screed as long form argument for taking the business of games more seriously. How the industry operates directly affects the less tangible aspects such as the aesthetics or social impact of games. If we want to talk about videogames in a serious and significant way, then we also need to get serious about thinking about the business of games.

Falling into line and making gross proclamation about the supremacy of the PS3 or the brilliance of the 360 marketing plan misses a raft of other business issues which will collide with, and complicate the story. And that’s the story that I want to understand better. Sucking down marketing hype as business intelligence is a foolish way to go about understanding videogames.

Ultimately, games and game companies should thrive or falter on the basis of how well their products communicate with us. Games that matter to us should make companies rich and those that don’t should fade silently away. It’s proper to focus on the life of gaming rather than the business of gaming. But the business matters and we risk missing the point if we don’t pay attention to the commercial spine of the medium

Or think about it this way. Microsoft spent billions of dollars more than they made on the Xbox. For them, it was an investment in the future, a future that they expect will make them money. For the average gamer, those billions of dollars were a gift. In a very real sense, Microsoft subsidized a big portion of the current generation of fun. They paid us to enjoy their games and to delight in the new products and services their money goaded their competitors into making. Whatever else you think about the Xbox, it was corporate charity, and every gamer benefited in one way or the other. The experience of playing videogames would be different if Bill Gates didn’t wake up one day and decide to aim his business at gaming.

We may not want to care about the suits behind the curtain. But they are
there, and the strings they pull make the industry dance.

From: http://www.buzzcut.com/article.php?s...05053122342247

Granted this article is out dated with the Revo controller and such, but the business side of it remains clear.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~
http://www.addict3d.org/index.php?pa...e=news&ID=7950

another good read

Divinitys Creature · Nov 16, 2005, 04:28 PM // 16:28

You should sell that article to a gaming magazine or something

Naprius · Nov 16, 2005, 04:49 PM // 16:49

that controller just messes up gaming in my opinion.. not to mention it looks bloody stupid johnson.

nothing can beat the PS1 controller.

lyra_song · Nov 16, 2005, 04:52 PM // 16:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Divinitys Creature

You should sell that article to a gaming magazine or something

All these articles are from online sources, not mine.

I pulled them up because most people who bad mouth nintendo don't really know anything beyond media hype and public image.

Nintendo is the REAL winner of the current console war, not Microsoft or Sony.

The way this generation played out, i predict the same will happen with the XBOX360/PS3/REVO generation.

EternalTempest · Nov 16, 2005, 05:29 PM // 17:29

lyra_song - great sources, very good perspective (this should also be posted in the xbox360 / ps3 fanboy threads too

The article was right about the dreamcast, it was ahead of it's time. Anyone rember PhantasyStar Online V1 with free on-line play, I even got the dreamcast to work on my know wife's dial up ISP with web browser. Soul Caliber was great. From what I rember DreamCast did ok in the us but got killed in the the Japanese market.

The article is very accurate, the press ignore Nintendo and are going after Sony Vs Microsoft. I also agree that having the entire nintendo library, just think if you can play any mario game, final fantasy 1-3, Dragonwarrior (know called DragonQuest and now coming back to PS2 this nov).

Divinitys Creature · Nov 16, 2005, 06:49 PM // 18:49

Thanks for putting that article up - very useful info that I can pass on to sony and microsoft fanboys I meet.

lyra_song · Nov 16, 2005, 07:21 PM // 19:21

i want to put up Nintendo DS vs PSP stuff too, but im waiting till i can get more up to date numbers on worldwide sales.

edit:

I doubt fanboys will care enough to read those long articles. Otherwise they wouldnt be fanboy.

Doooom · Nov 16, 2005, 07:27 PM // 19:27

I don't think DS and PSP are comparable, nor do I think Revolution and the others nor GameCube and the others are comparable.

Nintendo is making video games by the classic sense of the word and is making the systems to play them. The DS and the Revolution are about new ways of having fun playing games, not new ways of making graphics better. You can't compare fun using specs and numbers.

That's why, in the field of video games, Nintendo is not competition and has no competition.