Nintendo Rides the Wave.

[VIAN]

Look at this website and showing all of Nintendo's blunders. It's easy to see how Nintendo is riding a wave that it made for itself 20 years ago. Making games based on characters created twenty years ago.

Sure, Nintendo did revive the industry in 1985 with the awsome arcade graphics of NES system, but the biggest reason why it was so popular was because its greed to force game developers into contracts that prevented them from making games for other platforms. Then, Nintendo rode the wave to it's SNES, where due to it's popularity from Nintendo, it sold big and many developers showed up to collect the cash as well, while Sega stole some thunder.

In 1996, Nintendo missed the 3D graphics shock, releasing their console about 1 year after the PSX. This marked the downfall. The PSX, released in 1995, and people jumped to it quickly with all the 3D excitement. Then FFVII came in 1997 and it was apparently over for N64. Although I have to say it might have been worth it to own the console for 3 games, Ocrina of Time, Mario64 and Golden Eye.

Today, Nintendo surives on the gameboy, which they are starting to mess up on as well, releasing the non-back-lit GBA, the uncomfortable SP and the "creative" DS. As you can see in this website, they have always been trying to create something new and have continuously messed up and failed. Their incompitence is compensated by the timely popularity of Pokemon and their 1st party franchises of 20 years ago, which they keep expanding into more and more type of gameplays from party to sports to individual character titles.

The "Nintendo Legacy" is a bunch of hoopla. The wave started out big and kept decreasing. They have little headroom left before they go the way of Sega.

http://www.twitchguru.com/2005/12/10/nintendos_ups_and_downs/index.html

 

[RichUK]

To be fair the Megadrive owned the NES!!

 

[kellehair]

I fail to see how Nintendo missed the 3D era. When Mario 64 was released there was still nothing like it.

 

[modedepe]

ROB!! Damn, that thing was awesome

Just seeing that makes me want to whip it out again

 

[Zenoth]

But I see the point, although I do not completely agree.

It can go the other way around.

When Final Fantasy VII was released, there was still nothing like it on the Nintendo 64. Each sides had their advantages and exclusivities.

 

[VIAN]

Originally posted by: modedepe
ROB!! Damn, that thing was awesome

Just seeing that makes me want to whip it out again

I'll word it differently.

Basically I meant that 3d was no longer as big of a shock on the N64, since the PSX released it so much earlier.

 

[5150Joker]

Just like how Sony has been riding the wave of the PS1/PS2 although it has no good in-house games and no comparable online network to xbox live. I gurantee Sony will fade into the sunset before Nintendo with MS becoming the dominant console maker. It won't happen this generation but MS will pick up enough steam to take the win the next generation. With Sony relying on hype and past reputation and bleeding cash, it won't last against MS. Nintendo will live on because they tend to remain profitable, even with less marketshare.

 

[VIAN]

I also thought that Sony was riding a wave, because the PS2 hardware sucks so much buttox. But you have to admit, no other console has an RPG arsenal like the PS2. And the PS2 has actually grown in popularity, unlike the SNES, which most likely didn't sell as well as the NES.

 

[route66]

Does it matter? Nintendo is still making lots of money regardless of being in 'last place'.

 

[renzokuken]

Yeah Nintendo have done some stupid things in the past, no doubt, but so has Microsoft and Sony. I just can't understand why Microsoft insist on staying in the console market when they lost close to $2 billion on their little Xbox venture. $2 billion is a hell of a lot of cash to lose for a little rep. From my understanding, Sony seem to have made some cash from the PS2 and its games, but that still doesn't change the fact that Nintendo made more that double that with the Gamecube. I'm a self confessed Nintendo fanboy, but facts are facts. You can link to whatever opinionated website you like about Nintendo dying off and "going to way of Sega", but I can link you to the same number of websites saying otherwise. In the end it all comes down to the fact that Nintendo are the only company doing something innovative, fresh and new, and in turn are making the biggest profits from it. This is not an opinion, it is fact.


How Nintendo is Winning the Console War:
http://nintendo.about.com/od/editorials/a/gamestatistics.htm

 

[Sunrise089]

This is idiotic. Nintendo has had tremendous success for 20+ years, while Sega, Atari, and others have given up on the hardware market. Today they continue to build incredible first party games and still have occasional third party winners (Resident Evil 4 anyone?) all while MAKING THE MOST PROFIT OF ANY CONSOLE. The fact that in the US Sony and MS outsell them has led uninformed fear-mongers to claim Nintendo is somehow a failure-waiting-to-happen, completely ignoring the basic economic picture. Sales on Xbox 360s and PS-2s matter not an iota if they the companies loose money on each. Nintendo sells fewer total games, which is where all of the profit is to be found, but each game costs less to produce and the average game makes more profit than either of Nintendo's two competitors.

The ONLY reason companies like Microsoft are even able to stay in the game business is because they have a source of funding outside the game division. Xbox has been bleeding red ink since before it launched, but Microsoft continues the flawed business plan of hoping to operate at a loss now in order to magically recoup its investment later when they are the dominant player. This is the same argument used by Internet companies before the tech bubble burst ? keep funneling in cash on the assumption that any product being introduced is bound to pay for itself later. Its been six years, where's the payoff? The fact is, in order to remain a player in the type of head to head market MS and Sony are fighting over it is necessary to operate at a loss, therefore creating what is in effect a battle over a phantom market, one that wouldn't exist if the companies weren't fighting over a combination of vague notions of future profits that ?must be out there somewhere? and corporate pride, and in all likelihood pride is the true reason these companies keep operating their game devisions the way they do. Both are so afraid to give in to their rival and allow them the possibility of a long term victory that they create short term defeat after short term defeat.

Will Microsoft ever abandon the Xbox's business model? Probably not, since they have billions to spend on it, but Nintendo will never go away either as long as they continue to make money. Ask yourself what company you would rather own ? one that operates at a huge loss, but has a seemingly infinite supply of financial reserves, or one that operates under the sound principle of seeking a profit. It's easy to see that all it takes for the whole Xbox idea to fail is for MS to decide it's billions are best invested elsewhere, perhaps in the fight for web-browsing (firefox), Internet searching (google), operating systems (Linux and soon to be x86 OS-X), and office suites (open office) ? all of which are much more important to MS's core business.

For additional info see: General Motors (millions of sales, no profit) vs Porsche (much smaller sales, infinitely more profit) and guess which one analysts are predicting bankruptcy for.

EDIT: Welcome renzokuken, who apparently can say what I intend to say in far fewer words.

 

[johnnqq]

how does ps2 hardware suck? it came out before everything and the graphics are pretty much similar. you DO realize that the 233mhz ps2 processor is waay different than the 750mhz xbox processor right?

 

[5150Joker]

Sunrise, wtf are you talking about? The video games market is worth around $20+ billion, that is why MS continues to lose money in the quest to become the dominant player. If they lose a billion or two in the process of building a market name, its a drop in the bucket for them because the payoff is there and not perceived. Sony's Playstation division is the only profitable division Sony has had for several years now while the rest of the company continues to decline in revenue. Nintendo's last area of dominance, the handheld market, is under siege by the PSP and it will further shrink when MS inevitably joins the fray after their Xbox brand has become even more established. Why is MS doing this? A few reasons: 1. To gain market dominance in this lucrative industry. 2. To create that ideal livingroom entertainment hub, all powered by MS hardware and software. 3. To stave off Sony from gaining dominance in the living room and possibly making PCs less desired in the long run. IMO Sony is not a big threat to MS simply because of economics, they don't have the money to fight off MS and their loss is all but inevitable.

10 years from now: Sony who? Nintendo, oh that niche little game maker. Mark my words.

 

[VIAN]

Oh, look at that processor speed. Who gives a crap about that. It's called the blurriest textures next to N64. 4MB of VRAM.

BTW it is also a triple core processor, so I think the Xbox processor would have it worse.

 

[johnnqq]

i don't like that review. it's completely anti-nintendo...i hate how he goes on saying how terrible the n64 was. i haev a playstation and an n64. not only are load times faster, but the games are mostly better. (yes the graphics are a LITTLE bit worse, but the games were amazing and made the n64 more fun than playstation)

 

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: johnnqq
i don't like that review. it's completely anti-nintendo...i hate how he goes on saying how terrible the n64 was. i haev a playstation and an n64. not only are load times faster, but the games are mostly better. (yes the graphics are a LITTLE bit worse, but the games were amazing and made the n64 more fun than playstation)

Uh yeah N64 load times should have been better considering it was confined to fixed media! lol

 

[renzokuken]

I have a friend that works at EBgames. He thinks I'm delusional when I tell him that Nintendo makes a larger profit than the other two competitors. So I send him these two links over AIM and he's never read through them. Never. Yet, he's the first to tell me that Nintendo will likely be dead in the next few years because a friend of a friend at work said so or because he read somewhere once on a forum that there are more people that like PS2 than Gamecube. It's halarious. Really, it is. The second these kind of people are presented with the facts, they instantly dismiss it, and they quickly run to their black box's for comfort. So, have you got the balls to learn the real truth behind the console wars and click on those links below or are you going to run to your black box and suckle at its teet for comfort? Got more than balls? You got the coconuts you say? Don't just click the links, try reading them.


http://nintendo.about.com/gi/dynamic/of...er.com%2Fsite%2FEEEFylpkElFffmiBlr.php

http://nintendo.about.com/gi/dynamic/of...er.com%2Fsite%2FEEEZuAypVuTuOJPzyb.php

 

[jeepnut24]

They simply need to get used to the niche market they have backed themselves into.

 

[Unkno]

I don't really see Nintendo going, since they are like the only company that has the guts to try newer innovations. Nintendo has made a VERY good decision in having worse hardware specs with cheaper costs. The average person/parent would buy a console that's $100 cheaper than the other one. Sony, in the other hand, would probably leave the console gaming soon. I predict that there might not be a PS4 or that the PS4 would be the last of it's series because of Microsoft (depending on the time between each generation, about 5 years apart, so let's say around 5-10years before sony leaves the console gaming). Microsoft is has A LOT of money behind it. SO, in the end, the only competitors in the console gaming would be MS and maybe Nintendo depending on how well they innovate and the prices.

 

[akugami]

Ya know, it's quite possible Nintendo, at the end of 2007 could have an equal share of consoles sold as Sony and Microsoft. It all depends on how much cheaper the Revolution is vs Xbox 360 vs PS3 and how innovative the premier Nintendo launch title is for Revolution. Nintendo NEEDS to pull a rabbit out of it's hat and it better be gilded. I know Xbox 360 will drop in price by next Christmas and Sony's PS3 is likely to as well. However, if Nintendo is selling their console for under $200 and if they can pull off a "killer app" game for launch then Nintendo is going to do very well for itself. Don't underestimate the Nintendo name brand even though it's been tarnished a bit by Sony's dominance in recent years.

The reverse can also be true and the new Revolution controller can turn out gimicky and fans drive another nail in the closet that Nintendo has backed itself into. Nintendo absolutely NEEDS a game that makes both hardcore and casual fans drool. If they can't deliver the goods, fans won't care about the cheaper price of the Revolution and will instead choose an Xbox 360 or PS3.

I know many are writing off Nintendo but they are far from dead. There is a hardcore segment of the video games market that cares mainly about graphics but there is also a hardcore segment of gamers that cares mainly about gameplay. If Nintendo can deliver the goods we may very well see a nearly equally split market. Nintendo doesn't need the market leadership in order to churn a profit. That much is certain with the Gamecube and it's pretty much a certainty with Revolution.

Sony and Microsoft on the other hand NEED the market leadership, I figure at least 40% of the market, possibly as much as 50% in order to turn out a profit. Both companies' systems are costly behemoths and will need huge video game sales in order to turn a profit. In turn that needs a huge amount of console sales. If Nintendo can gain a 25% or more share of the market it'd put a pretty big squeeze on Sony and MS. Sony is the least capable of handling a loss in it's games division while MS rakes in billions in it's other divisions.

Let's not forget that Nintendo claims it has a "three pillar of support" strategy and that the DS is the 3rd pillar, the GC and it's successor the Revolution as the first pillar, meaning the original Gameboy and it's latest successor the Gameboy Advance as the 2nd pillar. Pure speculation but that means we have yet to see the true successor to the Gameboy Advance and IF Nintendo announces it at E3 for an early 2007 launch, we could see Nintendo crushing all competitors once again in the handheld market. Nintendo is as secretive as it gets for a company so I wouldn't put it past them to have such an ace up their sleeve to ensure their survival.

 

[jevans64]

Well. It has been YEARS since I worried about the console market. The last BIG console I owned was the Atari 2600 and I had a TurboExpress portable that doubled as a small field monitor at video shoots. The Revolution looks promising with the exception of the controller ( I hope a more "traditional" controller will be available as an accessory. ) I don't think Nintendo is going anywhere unless it makes the same mistakes as M$ and Sony -- selling their consoles at a loss. Nintendo will be fine as long as their consoles / portables turn a profit. I think Sony would be the next one to go since their overall financial position is a little shaky at the moment. Microsoft will be dominant simply because they have BILLIONS to burn on the console market.

On the flipside, none of my relatives and friends ( their children ) own a Nintendo console. They own either the PS2 or XBox or both. A couple of them have a version of the Gameboy, so I think this is where Nintendo's hardware legacy lies.

 

[ElFenix]

what a stupid troll post.

the snes was techincally superior to the genesis in pretty much about every way. plus the controller was way better.

n64's 3d graphics were way better than psx's. psx's looked like an afterthought hacked onto a console intended to do 2D and motion capture games. no, nintendo's 'mistake' was choosing a format that offered fast load times over sheer capacity. and the controller moved the industry forward, even if it was a bit weird.

while ps2 was the same old same old, with essentially the same controller as the prior console (which is essentially a ripoff of the SNES controller), games with the same game play and focus time and time again, nintendo choose to focus on the usability of the controller. the design this time was more conventional than the previous one, but at least it kept the primary thumbstick where it is easily reached, unlike the hack-job ps2 controller. note that the xbox controller used essentially the same stick layout.

of course, nintendo has made money on GC, which is more than sony can usually say about ps2 and way more than MS can say about xbox. saying they're surviving solely on gameboy just isn't based in reality.

and i don't know what you're saying about SP being uncomfortable. i find it just fine myself. i know that's a personal thing, though. if that's the biggest complaint you can lodge against it, well, it isn't much.

DS is flying off the shelves and is outselling PSP. it has more good games too.

as for headroom, i believe they have more cash in the bank than sony, and the way they actually make money quarter to quarter doesn't make it seem like they're going away any time soon. they could probably afford to not sell anything for YEARS and still stay in business. again, this claim seems to be not based at all on fact or reality.

 

[VIAN]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
what a stupid troll post.

the snes was techincally superior to the genesis in pretty much about every way. plus the controller was way better.

n64's 3d graphics were way better than psx's. psx's looked like an afterthought hacked onto a console intended to do 2D and motion capture games. no, nintendo's 'mistake' was choosing a format that offered fast load times over sheer capacity. and the controller moved the industry forward, even if it was a bit weird.

while ps2 was the same old same old, with essentially the same controller as the prior console (which is essentially a ripoff of the SNES controller), games with the same game play and focus time and time again, nintendo choose to focus on the usability of the controller. the design this time was more conventional than the previous one, but at least it kept the primary thumbstick where it is easily reached, unlike the hack-job ps2 controller. note that the xbox controller used essentially the same stick layout.

of course, nintendo has made money on GC, which is more than sony can usually say about ps2 and way more than MS can say about xbox. saying they're surviving solely on gameboy just isn't based in reality.

and i don't know what you're saying about SP being uncomfortable. i find it just fine myself. i know that's a personal thing, though. if that's the biggest complaint you can lodge against it, well, it isn't much.

DS is flying off the shelves and is outselling PSP. it has more good games too.

as for headroom, i believe they have more cash in the bank than sony, and the way they actually make money quarter to quarter doesn't make it seem like they're going away any time soon. they could probably afford to not sell anything for YEARS and still stay in business. again, this claim seems to be not based at all on fact or reality.

From online specs, it looks like the SNES had a CPU half as fast as the genesis. However, the SNES was able to display 256 colors out of 32000 compared to the Genesis at 64 of 512. SNES was also capable of almost twice the vertical resolution. It wasn't better in all things, but it had more graphics power. It better for coming out 2 years later than the genesis. And yes the controller was better.

I wasn't fond of N64's graphics. They always had some blurriness around the entire picture, like it was a bit hazy. I don't enjoy looking at it. But it was still their mistake to include that medium. The controller, although interesting, I don't like, because, I would like to use the Dpad and there were so many games where they forced you to use the freakin Analog stick. It's interesting when don't force people.

Yes, the PS2 has the crappiest analog sticks ever. One reason why sony sucks is because they did away with the original controller. Forget thumbsticks or vibration. The comfort that was the original, light and easy to hold - that's what I want, before dual shock. The Xbox controller had a much better layout than the PS2 controller. I enjoy that better because it doesn't make the Dpad less important like all of Nintendo's controllers with Analog sticks.

Not only is the SP uncofortable - come on it's a box, when as anything boxy ever been ergonomic, but the backlight sucks. I forgot to mention this above. You get good color when the screen is tilted and you're looking up from under it at a weird angle. If you move, the colors change and you're able to see a blue glared from the "bottom light" messing with the colors of the screen. That's my biggest complaint. It's freakin annoying.

I admit that I would buy one over the PSP, especially with FF3 being rereleased onto it, hell yeah. DS may have more games, but most of them suck. Games that sucks fall under the 80% rating in reviews. According to gamerankings.com There are 17 games at 80% or above and I wouldn't even get all of them. I may get just a hand full. That won't last me long. THe GBA advance though, would make up for it with about 85 games at 80% or above. They have some nice games that are worth playing over any DS games. This is why I feel that the DS is finally a good version of the GBA.

Maybe it's more of a hope that they go the way of Sega. At least then, everybody would get to play mario games instead of just Nintendo hardware owners. But I say that Mario just doesn't cut it anymore. I won't be buying a Nintendo system for a long time.

 

[Dainas]

Going by the laws of probability;

It doesnt matter what people may think, MS has the money to steamroll on while Sony and Nintendo market loyalty will only last for another generation. Sony's PSP is far better in every aspect to the gimmick driven DS, but it isnt selling as well because it isnt a Gameboy... just as the Dreamcast was not a Playstation and eventualy succumed. However Sony has the financial ability to ride the PSP long enough for the general population to realise what junk nintendo is pushing, botching Nintendos next handheld. Likewise the same will probably happen to the PS3 after it and the 360 have been out for awhile.. ruining the success of the PS"4?". Nintendo will be religated to selling cheapo handheld spinoff stuff or ala Sega (minus decent development studios) and Sony will probably go bankrupt for a combination of other reasons (there gaming division is actualy the only thing they've had turn a profit for years).

By then some other gigantic IT company will have stood up to bat against Microsoft for the Console market (Samsung?)

Its farfetched but actualy the most plausible accounting for the way things are now.

 

[Unkno]

I can't wait until Google starts going into the console market (not samsung--from above post). Just imagine google, it'd be funny if they made the console CHEAP, and the games cheap and only make money on some advertisement. Either way, google vs microsoft would be the true battle.