Revolution and Third Party Developers?

[Lord007]

http://cube.ign.com/articles/593/593733p1.html

It seems I am getting more and more excited just to see what all the fuss is with Nintendo's Revolution, but at the same time more and more worried that maybe this will be a huge flop...

We all have our favorites when it comes to console manufacturers and perhaps Nintendo isn't #1 on my list, but I certainly don't want to see them go.

[goatdan]

I've heard the hype and the rumors, but I can say this...

Nintendo's idea just doesn't sound like it will work in any way to me. While I fully understand how the DS is attempting to target a new market, I don't see how a home console could acheive the same thing.

And seriously -- how can you even gear up to produce a console you think that third-party developers may not support? How many games can Nintendo bring out for one console by themselves? It just doesn't sound like a good idea to me.

[Jasoco]

I don't care if it's a flop or not. As long as it has the games I like. And seeing as it'll have Mario, it WILL have games I like. That much is guaranteed.

Now I wish this thread wasn't destined to turn into a steaming argument about Nintendo like all the others. *sigh*

So in advance, "Everyone stop arguing like a pack of idiots."

There. That covers it. Carry on. :/

[WanganRunner]

But remember, Nintendo won't sell the things unless Nintendo can make a profit selling them. They ALWAYS cut a profit on everything they sell, so they can afford to do little experiments, screw up, and then come back to fight another day. They are NOT in bad shape at all, it doesn't really hurt them per se to have their market share drawn down, because they still see the cash coming through the front door (unlike, for instance, Microsoft, who takes a loss on Xboxes).

[njiska]

I really don't know what's gonna happen with the Revolution, but i do no that Nintendo is on a downhill slide when it comes to home consoles. I've got a Gamecube and i do enjoy it, but to be honest the system itself isn't very great. I mean who releases a console with a right analogue stick like the GC has? My friends have actually taken apart another GC controller just to steal it's left stick to replace the c stick in their Wavebirds. And what the hell was Nintendo thinking with the BBA? Seriously, what a useless add-on (unless you're playing Phantasy Star Online or you're using it to play pirate games/backups).

I do love Nintendo, but they're going the way of Sega in the console world and i don't think that's such a bad thing. In Handhelds they'll always be the best and they're still producing good systems, but in the console market Nintendo is dying. I'd much rather see nintendo stop making consoles and instead focus on making quality games. Lately everything they've been doing is getting out-sourced. In fact i think the only game in development in house is the new Zelda game. Nintendo has never been about the consoles, it's always been about the games. They don't need to keep making consoles and judging by how the GC has done i think they'd actually be more profitable making multi console games for other companies. Although given the current state of things i doubt they ever make a game for Sony.

Nintendo is a great company, but they're digging a hole when it comes to home consoles. If the Revolution fails then they may have no choice but to step out of the console war.

It happened to Sega. The Dreamcast was and still is an amazing system, but it came at the wrong time. I think the revolution is gonna suffer the same fate, especially if it lacks 3rd party support.

[njiska]

But remember, Nintendo won't sell the things unless Nintendo can make a profit selling them. They ALWAYS cut a profit on everything they sell, so they can afford to do little experiments, screw up, and then come back to fight another day. They are NOT in bad shape at all, it doesn't really hurt them per se to have their market share drawn down, because they still see the cash coming through the front door (unlike, for instance, Microsoft, who takes a loss on Xboxes).

All the current companies take a hit on consoles, even Nintendo. It's the nature of the beast, consoles cost a shit load to make, that's why you licence games for them. That's how nintendo makes a profit. It'll be hard to convince me it costs them less then $99 to make a Gamecube.

[allen]

the idea here seems to be this: there is now more than one audience for video games. hence it makes no sense for there to be a multiplicity of consoles for the same kinds of games. since nintendo has been competing with sony and failing to win the "general audience" of video gamers, they are trying to create hardware that has an inherently different format and could 1.) attract special interest groups within the general audience and 2.) attract the interest of people who typically have no interest in video games.

it seems like it would be up to the third parties to decide whether or not they would want to support multiple platforms, not in the sense that they would have to "port" their games from one platform to another, but rather that since the platforms were fundamentally different they would have to create unique games for *each console*

[Jasoco]

Allen's right. Everyone seems to be complaining that Nintendo's trying not to be like the other consoles. It really is stupid to have the same games on all the systems. Why NOT have a console that brings a little more to the table? I for one look forward to seeing what Nintendo comes up with.

[cr0n0]

Competition is good for the consumer, and it's nice to see Nintendo taking a risk when it is in third place. Some might argue they HAVE no choice since they are in third place, but I think they are pushing the envelope once again. If we were all satisifed with what we have and took no risks, we might still be livivng in caves for all we know. OKAY...too drastic, but you get my drift.

[allen]

there is always a myth that the current generation video games are the only possible video games. when there were "only" dedicated pong consoles people seemed to think that ball and paddle games were the extent of video games, although this general opinion was not even historically accurate

[goatdan]

I really don't know what's gonna happen with the Revolution, but i do no that Nintendo is on a downhill slide when it comes to home consoles. I've got a Gamecube and i do enjoy it, but to be honest the system itself isn't very great. I mean who releases a console with a right analogue stick like the GC has? My friends have actually taken apart another GC controller just to steal it's left stick to replace the c stick in their Wavebirds. And what the hell was Nintendo thinking with the BBA? Seriously, what a useless add-on (unless you're playing Phantasy Star Online or you're using it to play pirate games/backups).

To each his own, I guess. Personally, I love the C stick on the GameCube controllers -- I didn't think I would from looking at it, but I really like its feel. The fact that the Cube has analog joysticks that stil allow you to guarantee you're putting it in one of eight directions is also awesome to me, and perhaps the innovation on the controllers I like the most.

Regardless, this argument is a moot point because it has almost nothing to do with the console itself losing sales ground. And overall, I really don't think it has done that poorly.

Nintendo is a great company, but they're digging a hole when it comes to home consoles. If the Revolution fails then they may have no choice but to step out of the console war.

They won't "have to" step out of the console war. They will do so when they choose too. Nintendo has such an amazingly amount of money that you can't begin to compare them to Sega. Nintendo could probably do nothing for the next fifty years and still pay all its employees.

All the current companies take a hit on consoles, even Nintendo. It's the nature of the beast, consoles cost a shit load to make, that's why you licence games for them. That's how nintendo makes a profit. It'll be hard to convince me it costs them less then $99 to make a Gamecube.

Actually, both Nintendo and Sony are making money on their consoles currently. Microsoft is still taking a hit, although it is significantly less than when they were first making the Xbox.

That having been said, the goals of Sony and Nintendo are completely different than the goal of Microsoft. MS believes that in the not-too-distant future, there will be one device that hooks your TV up to the internet / cable / video chat / everything else you can think of. That one device is going to have to be made by someone, and be run by something. They believe that the way to start getting these into people's house is to start in the video game market and then expand the services. Xbox Live is all part of the plan for making an online community that MS controls...

And then if they win or are a major player, ultimately they can charge a fee to the consumer each time they decide what movie to watch, or what game to play or whatever. It might not be too much -- lets say the fee is only a couple pennys each time... but 300 million people paying them a couple pennys a day would be a HUGE profit, and worth the entire investment that they have put into the Xbox to get their foothold.

Nintendo and Sony are both in this to make money now. The PS2 hardware was redesigned to make manufacturing much cheaper. The GameCube was supposedly making Nintendo money from day one, which is unheard of. Therefore, as they make more consoles, their prices fall and profits rise. It hurts Microsoft in this war, but MS has committed and they will follow it through. Hell, they have the money too.

it seems like it would be up to the third parties to decide whether or not they would want to support multiple platforms, not in the sense that they would have to "port" their games from one platform to another, but rather that since the platforms were fundamentally different they would have to create unique games for *each console*

I agree with this. One thing that I've thought of that hasn't been mentioned about it -- what about the return of Virtual Reality? Atari was gearing up to release a Jaguar VR helmet about ten years ago now for $150.00 that was amazingly powerful. With the time that has passed from then to now, I could see this happening...

[joshnickerson]

it seems like it would be up to the third parties to decide whether or not they would want to support multiple platforms, not in the sense that they would have to "port" their games from one platform to another, but rather that since the platforms were fundamentally different they would have to create unique games for *each console*

Yes, but you're forgetting that most third parties these days are lazy and prefer to only make games designed for the PS2 and then port them to the other consoles. It's cheap, easy, and in most cases, makes them assloads of money.

I'd like to see cross-platform games have more "unique" features to each version. Take Soul Calibur 2 for example. Each console got a unique character. You could take it a step further and even alter the games themselves. Like you're playing the second stage on the PS2, but when you check out your pal on the second stage on the Cube, it's completely different. Or even make the entire game completely different from each other.

Well, now I'm starting to ramble so I'd better stop... and in my day, we didn't have fancy "analog" joysticks...

[GobopopRevisited]

If its a new way of making games, and the traditional games that third parties offer wont really work well with the system and its CwAzY Concepts... then what makes you think the traditional Mario, Zelda, Metroid, Pikmin, StarFox, Pokemon, Mother, Kid Icarus, Animal Crossing, Donkey Kong, Kirby, and F-Zero games will??

I believe Nintendo will alienate third parties... but I also believe they will alienate their Die-Hard fans simply because they have taken radical steps to alter the things their fans became so die-hard over.

[PrototypeFC3S]

I look at it this way. If the console flops, and they have a bunch of really great games... ie. Dreamcast. Then it'll be a lot easier for collectors to snatch up all the software and hardware.

Just my two cents.

[Algol]

The article was slightly disturbing, but I can definitely understand why Nintendo is doing this. They're trying a new angle with games because they feel they're getting as realistic as they will ever be. Just how much further can we take graphics and sound anyway? Nintendo is taking a risk with Revolution, but risk is just part of the game sometimes.

[njiska]

To each his own, I guess. Personally, I love the C stick on the GameCube controllers -- I didn't think I would from looking at it, but I really like its feel. The fact that the Cube has analog joysticks that stil allow you to guarantee you're putting it in one of eight directions is also awesome to me, and perhaps the innovation on the controllers I like the most.

Regardless, this argument is a moot point because it has almost nothing to do with the console itself losing sales ground. And overall, I really don't think it has done that poorly.

I'm kind of torn on the 8 direction thing. I do like them, but i don't like the feel when i have to move in a circle. It feels a little too much like it's grinding. However i will yeild that the controller is probably a moote point because you're right that i probably didn't affect sales much. But it is a fair complaint about the system none the less is unatractive to some (and i'm not just basing that on my personal opinion.)

They won't "have to" step out of the console war. They will do so when they choose too. Nintendo has such an amazingly amount of money that you can't begin to compare them to Sega. Nintendo could probably do nothing for the next fifty years and still pay all its employees.

True Nintendo is a rich company, however they're also a financially smart company. If they lose too much on consoles and make a lot on the games, they may "choose" to switch. Perhaps i was a little too hard when i said that they have to step out, however they don't like to be embarassed by failure and if the Revolution fails, then it's a black eye. Plus i do honestly beleive that Nintendo would be more profitable as a multi platform software company. Nintendo has the greatest franchises in video game history and they know it. What it comes down to is that if the revolution is a success then they're fine. If it fails and they get no good 3rd party support then they'll have to look at the over market. If it lacks 3rd party support would a new console after the Revolution get any? It's all business. Personally i want the Revolution to succeed, but i do have some serious doubts. I don't think it could be as bad as the Virtua Boy, but i'm still worried about it's chances of success.

Actually, both Nintendo and Sony are making money on their consoles currently. Microsoft is still taking a hit, although it is significantly less than when they were first making the Xbox.

Let me clarify exactly what i meant was that on the sales of the console alone all 3 companies are taking a loss. In other words it cost more to manufacture then they make on the sale of the actually unit. Not the net gain/loss related to the console. And in fact i beleive that Microsoft's xbox division actually turned a profit in the last quarter due to the boost gained by Halo 2 and the boost in Xbox Live sales.

That having been said, the goals of Sony and Nintendo are completely different than the goal of Microsoft. MS believes that in the not-too-distant future, there will be one device that hooks your TV up to the internet / cable / video chat / everything else you can think of. That one device is going to have to be made by someone, and be run by something. They believe that the way to start getting these into people's house is to start in the video game market and then expand the services. Xbox Live is all part of the plan for making an online community that MS controls...

And then if they win or are a major player, ultimately they can charge a fee to the consumer each time they decide what movie to watch, or what game to play or whatever. It might not be too much -- lets say the fee is only a couple pennys each time... but 300 million people paying them a couple pennys a day would be a HUGE profit, and worth the entire investment that they have put into the Xbox to get their foothold.

Where exactly did this arguement come from?? I don't think this is relevant to the current disscussion but i'd love to debate you about this in another thread or in PMs.

Nintendo and Sony are both in this to make money now. The PS2 hardware was redesigned to make manufacturing much cheaper. The GameCube was supposedly making Nintendo money from day one, which is unheard of. Therefore, as they make more consoles, their prices fall and profits rise. It hurts Microsoft in this war, but MS has committed and they will follow it through. Hell, they have the money too.

Again even though those units are manufactured cheaper they are still costing more to manufacture.

here's a quote: " At about $149, Nintendo will roughly break even on sales of each GameCube, Harrison said."

Here's a link to the quote http://www.firstcoastnews.com/onyour...1/gamecube.asp

Even though it's an old quote i find it hard to beleive that their manufacturing costs have dropped as much as the sale price of the console has. Even without serial port 2 and the digital a/v port the cost should still be higher then $99. Although I will concede that it was selling at a profit at the start. I can't find any stats on the current ps2 manufacturing costs, but i'll keep looking.

[PDorr3]

The article was slightly disturbing, but I can definitely understand why Nintendo is doing this. They're trying a new angle with games because they feel they're getting as realistic as they will ever be. Just how much further can we take graphics and sound anyway? Nintendo is taking a risk with Revolution, but risk is just part of the game sometimes.

Yes I agree. They need to take risks, while microsoft and sony will continue making systems that only approve on graphics, nintendo will be making consoles that improve on new possibilities. 10 years down thed road from now, will we still want to be buying new systems every 4-5 years just becuase of the new shadow and particle effects?

I think nintendo is doing the right thing.

[goatdan]

I'm kind of torn on the 8 direction thing. I do like them, but i don't like the feel when i have to move in a circle. It feels a little too much like it's grinding. However i will yeild that the controller is probably a moote point because you're right that i probably didn't affect sales much. But it is a fair complaint about the system none the less is unatractive to some (and i'm not just basing that on my personal opinion.)

Well, that's true but it has nothing to do with the argument. People adapt to the controllers if they like the games on the system. I liked the Atari 2600 joystick more than the NES controller, but I couldn't play Mario decently with a Joystick.

True Nintendo is a rich company, however they're also a financially smart company. If they lose too much on consoles and make a lot on the games, they may "choose" to switch. Perhaps i was a little too hard when i said that they have to step out, however they don't like to be embarassed by failure and if the Revolution fails, then it's a black eye. Plus i do honestly beleive that Nintendo would be more profitable as a multi platform software company. Nintendo has the greatest franchises in video game history and they know it. What it comes down to is that if the revolution is a success then they're fine. If it fails and they get no good 3rd party support then they'll have to look at the over market. If it lacks 3rd party support would a new console after the Revolution get any? It's all business. Personally i want the Revolution to succeed, but i do have some serious doubts. I don't think it could be as bad as the Virtua Boy, but i'm still worried about it's chances of success.

Yes. This I agree with completely.

Let me clarify exactly what i meant was that on the sales of the console alone all 3 companies are taking a loss. In other words it cost more to manufacture then they make on the sale of the actually unit. Not the net gain/loss related to the console. And in fact i beleive that Microsoft's xbox division actually turned a profit in the last quarter due to the boost gained by Halo 2 and the boost in Xbox Live sales.

No, I understood -- but you're wrong. Both Sony and Nintendo are in fact making money for every console sold. Microsoft is still not. More below...

That having been said, the goals of Sony and Nintendo are completely different than the goal of Microsoft. MS believes that in the not-too-distant future, there will be one device that hooks your TV up to the internet / cable / video chat / everything else you can think of. That one device is going to have to be made by someone, and be run by something. They believe that the way to start getting these into people's house is to start in the video game market and then expand the services. Xbox Live is all part of the plan for making an online community that MS controls...

And then if they win or are a major player, ultimately they can charge a fee to the consumer each time they decide what movie to watch, or what game to play or whatever. It might not be too much -- lets say the fee is only a couple pennys each time... but 300 million people paying them a couple pennys a day would be a HUGE profit, and worth the entire investment that they have put into the Xbox to get their foothold.

Where exactly did this arguement come from?? I don't think this is relevant to the current disscussion but i'd love to debate you about this in another thread or in PMs.

It's relevant to the point that both Nintendo and Sony are in the market to make money now, while Microsoft has a long term plan. I don't remember the source exactly where it came from, but Bill Gates said something to that effect to shareholders when the Xbox was gearing for release. I've mentioned it more than once before on here because I find it such an interesting plan.

It is their long term strategy. It's brilliant really, but it is a pretty big risk. But Bill Gates is used to big risks, and he definitely has the money to risk it on this. Think about what has happened in the last ten years -- it is almost a definite that we will have some sort of box to connect us to the world that way. And if Microsoft can be there, they will.

Again even though those units are manufactured cheaper they are still costing more to manufacture.

here's a quote: " At about $149, Nintendo will roughly break even on sales of each GameCube, Harrison said."

Here's a link to the quote http://www.firstcoastnews.com/onyour...1/gamecube.asp

Even though it's an old quote i find it hard to beleive that their manufacturing costs have dropped as much as the sale price of the console has. Even without serial port 2 and the digital a/v port the cost should still be higher then $99. Although I will concede that it was selling at a profit at the start. I can't find any stats on the current ps2 manufacturing costs, but i'll keep looking.

I'm sorry -- usually I have my sources around, but tonight I'm too tired to dig them up. I know that Sony was quoted as having stated that the reason for the PS2 redesign was so that they make more money on each console sold. It wasn't quite that blunt, but that was the point of it.

As more consoles are made, the cost of each goes significantly down. The basic idea is that to manufacture your first batch, you need to do all of the research and development, set up the factory and perform other start up fees that easily number in the millions. After the early adaptors have come on board and you have paid back a lot of your start-up fees, the cost drops rapidly as you only need to maintain the factories and pay the workers.

The reason the Xbox in particular has remained so expensive is the fact that Microsoft decided to use other people's parts inside it -- as has been noted, it is basically a compuer. So Microsoft is forced to pay a certain amount for hard drives, a certain amount for DVD drives, etc. The Xboxes that you purchase right now in stores have a 20 GB drive in them even though the BIOS can only access 6 GB. This is because all of the manufacturers stopped making 6 GB drives because they were obsolete. Microsoft is stuck purchasing a part that is more expensive because they aren't producing it.

Hopefully, that clears some stuff up. If I remember to, I'll go digging for my source on that Xbox thing in the near future. Must... sleep... now...

[njiska]

True Nintendo is a rich company, however they're also a financially smart company. If they lose too much on consoles and make a lot on the games, they may "choose" to switch. Perhaps i was a little too hard when i said that they have to step out, however they don't like to be embarassed by failure and if the Revolution fails, then it's a black eye. Plus i do honestly beleive that Nintendo would be more profitable as a multi platform software company. Nintendo has the greatest franchises in video game history and they know it. What it comes down to is that if the revolution is a success then they're fine. If it fails and they get no good 3rd party support then they'll have to look at the over market. If it lacks 3rd party support would a new console after the Revolution get any? It's all business. Personally i want the Revolution to succeed, but i do have some serious doubts. I don't think it could be as bad as the Virtua Boy, but i'm still worried about it's chances of success.

Yes. This I agree with completely.

This really is the point i wanted to make from the start.

Let me clarify exactly what i meant was that on the sales of the console alone all 3 companies are taking a loss. In other words it cost more to manufacture then they make on the sale of the actually unit. Not the net gain/loss related to the console. And in fact i beleive that Microsoft's xbox division actually turned a profit in the last quarter due to the boost gained by Halo 2 and the boost in Xbox Live sales.

No, I understood -- but you're wrong. Both Sony and Nintendo are in fact making money for every console sold. Microsoft is still not. More below...

That having been said, the goals of Sony and Nintendo are completely different than the goal of Microsoft. MS believes that in the not-too-distant future, there will be one device that hooks your TV up to the internet / cable / video chat / everything else you can think of. That one device is going to have to be made by someone, and be run by something. They believe that the way to start getting these into people's house is to start in the video game market and then expand the services. Xbox Live is all part of the plan for making an online community that MS controls...

And then if they win or are a major player, ultimately they can charge a fee to the consumer each time they decide what movie to watch, or what game to play or whatever. It might not be too much -- lets say the fee is only a couple pennys each time... but 300 million people paying them a couple pennys a day would be a HUGE profit, and worth the entire investment that they have put into the Xbox to get their foothold.

Where exactly did this arguement come from?? I don't think this is relevant to the current disscussion but i'd love to debate you about this in another thread or in PMs.

It's relevant to the point that both Nintendo and Sony are in the market to make money now, while Microsoft has a long term plan. I don't remember the source exactly where it came from, but Bill Gates said something to that effect to shareholders when the Xbox was gearing for release. I've mentioned it more than once before on here because I find it such an interesting plan.

It is their long term strategy. It's brilliant really, but it is a pretty big risk. But Bill Gates is used to big risks, and he definitely has the money to risk it on this. Think about what has happened in the last ten years -- it is almost a definite that we will have some sort of box to connect us to the world that way. And if Microsoft can be there, they will.

Again even though those units are manufactured cheaper they are still costing more to manufacture.

here's a quote: " At about $149, Nintendo will roughly break even on sales of each GameCube, Harrison said."

Here's a link to the quote http://www.firstcoastnews.com/onyour...1/gamecube.asp

Even though it's an old quote i find it hard to beleive that their manufacturing costs have dropped as much as the sale price of the console has. Even without serial port 2 and the digital a/v port the cost should still be higher then $99. Although I will concede that it was selling at a profit at the start. I can't find any stats on the current ps2 manufacturing costs, but i'll keep looking.

I'm sorry -- usually I have my sources around, but tonight I'm too tired to dig them up. I know that Sony was quoted as having stated that the reason for the PS2 redesign was so that they make more money on each console sold. It wasn't quite that blunt, but that was the point of it.

As more consoles are made, the cost of each goes significantly down. The basic idea is that to manufacture your first batch, you need to do all of the research and development, set up the factory and perform other start up fees that easily number in the millions. After the early adaptors have come on board and you have paid back a lot of your start-up fees, the cost drops rapidly as you only need to maintain the factories and pay the workers.

The reason the Xbox in particular has remained so expensive is the fact that Microsoft decided to use other people's parts inside it -- as has been noted, it is basically a compuer. So Microsoft is forced to pay a certain amount for hard drives, a certain amount for DVD drives, etc. The Xboxes that you purchase right now in stores have a 20 GB drive in them even though the BIOS can only access 6 GB. This is because all of the manufacturers stopped making 6 GB drives because they were obsolete. Microsoft is stuck purchasing a part that is more expensive because they aren't producing it.

Hopefully, that clears some stuff up. If I remember to, I'll go digging for my source on that Xbox thing in the near future. Must... sleep... now...

Look Dan i'll be honest with you. I only have limited sources to work with on the manufacturing costs. As far as i can tell they're not profitable out the door right now. That aside i do know you well enough to know that if you have a source you probably do have a sopurce that prooves this. That being said i'll yeild this arguement because i don't think it matters to the revolution debate as much as my main point at the top that you agree with. Although i would like you to post your sources or PM me about them just as a courtesy. But i will not argue this point any longer.

Oh and the bios accesses 8gb not 6 on the xbox. I do know that it costs MS considerably more the they make and i never said it didn't. All i did mention was that they did turn a profit on the xbox division last quarter.

But i'm tired too so if you've got anything more to say i'll check it out in the morning.

[Richter]

The Xboxes that you purchase right now in stores have a 20 GB drive in them even though the BIOS can only access 6 GB. This is because all of the manufacturers stopped making 6 GB drives because they were obsolete.

actually it's because the production costs of a 20GB & a 6GB are the same