So... do you think they'll keep the code-name Revolution?

stealth toilet said:
Well looking at my game library to date all the games I own were either made in NA or Europe.

GTA III (Rockstar, NA)
Conker:L&R (Rare, UK)
Fable (Lionhead, UK)
NHL 2K5 (Sega, HQ is in Japan but they are international with a Sega of America and Sega of Europe)
Heroes of the Pacific (Ubisoft, Canada)
Crimson Skies (Microsoft, I don't know exactly where it was made, but I would guess a NA division of the company, that is just a guess though)

Even the bulk of my GC game library came from companies like EA, Ubisoft, Rockstar, and Hal.

Plus the games I want and plan to get are all from NA or Europe. I mean, games like Jade Empire (Bioware, NA), Halo 2 (Bungie, NA), The Warriors (Rockstar, NA), Black (Criterion/EA, NA) are all made by western companies for western audiences. The japanese can keep their anime influenced fem-boy turn-based nonsensical RPG's. If I want to watch an animated unisex character save the universe from impending doom with stereotypical sidekicks and rehashed plot twists then I'll... actually, I don't think I ever will want to watch that.

I generally just don't find games made by Japanese developers appealing. Of course there are exceptions, but on the whole everything I want is on the Xbox.
Click to expand...

I suppose this just boils down to taste and there's not much I can do to save you. :-). Western (including Euro) games have most definitely improved over the past decade, but there's no way that beyond several excellent titles do they go above and beyond the classics and modern-day marvels.

Occasionally the western development world does surprise me - such as Retro Studios. It blew my mind that Nintendo was dropping the Metroid franchise in to their hands, but behold.. Metroid Prime is fantastic.



Well, let's face it. When Christmas time rolls around there are a helluva lot of clueless parents buying videogames for their kids, and something as trivial as the name might matter. Why take the risk? Don't give the customer a single reason not to buy your product, and there's a better chance that they will buy it. These guys beat Nintendo with the first console they ever made, they must know a thing or two about how the biz works.
Click to expand...

Funny you say that. Since when is "beating" implied by having massive financial loss in the billions, failure to penetrate all markets evenly, and if even equal, only slightly greater sales numbers worldwide? I love how Nintendo's always the "loser", yet they laugh to the bank with millions of dollars.
 
Sartori said:
Funny you say that. Since when is "beating" implied by having massive financial loss in the billions, failure to penetrate all markets evenly, and if even equal, only slightly greater sales numbers worldwide?  I love how Nintendo's always the "loser", yet they laugh to the bank with millions of dollars.
Click to expand...

This is true :lol

While, Xbox may have gotten more product out, they had very large losses. Quite a few suppliers questioned how they could called it a success.
Yes, they got more merchandise out... but if they are losing... that does no good.


†B†V† :hat
 
Funny you say that. Since when is "beating" implied by having massive financial loss in the billions, failure to penetrate all markets evenly, and if even equal, only slightly greater sales numbers worldwide? I love how Nintendo's always the "loser", yet they laugh to the bank with millions of dollars
Click to expand...

Haha, yes, BV and I have argued to death over the definition of "success" as applied to the videogame industry. I still believe that sales are practically the end all be all of determining a console's success. Losing money on a console, while at the same time gaining an incredible amount of the total (North American, European, and Japanse combined) market share, to me is a successful venture (especially in the long term). It takes money to make money, breaking into an industry isn't easy. While Nintendo may be laughing all the way to the bank today, they might not be so quick to laugh if Microsoft is able to convert even more Nintendo fans to the big M over the next 5, 10, or 15 years.

I just think it's funny that Microsoft managed to surpass Nintendo's fanbase in one console generation. To me, that's the bottom line.

I suppose this just boils down to taste and there's not much I can do to save you. :-). Western (including Euro) games have most definitely improved over the past decade, but there's no way that beyond several excellent titles do they go above and beyond the classics and modern-day marvels.

Occasionally the western development world does surprise me - such as Retro Studios. It blew my mind that Nintendo was dropping the Metroid franchise in to their hands, but behold.. Metroid Prime is fantastic.
Click to expand...

Yes, I am well aware of the fact that my idea of a "fun" videogame seems shallow and uninformed to some. Japanese games, while obviously popular and excelling in their own right, simply do not incorporate themes or gameplay that I enjoy. I have no need or desire to be "saved," as I have played videogames all my life and indeed believe that I can separate the "bad" from the "good."

Ironically, the one Western company you mentioned I don't care for. :lol
Retro Studios, or at least the GC Metroid titles, failed to grasp my attention for any extended period of time. It was a solid game, but I just found it to be boring to the point where playing it became a chore.

To each his own... obviously. :lol
 
stealth toilet said:
Haha, yes, BV and I have argued to death over the definition of "success" as applied to the videogame industry. I still believe that sales are practically the end all be all of determining a console's success. Losing money on a console, while at the same time gaining an incredible amount of the total (North American, European, and Japanse combined) market share, to me is a successful venture (especially in the long term). It takes money to make money, breaking into an industry isn't easy. While Nintendo may be laughing all the way to the bank today, they might not be so quick to laugh if Microsoft is able to convert even more Nintendo fans to the big M over the next 5, 10, or 15 years.

I just think it's funny that Microsoft managed to surpass Nintendo's fanbase in one console generation. To me, that's the bottom line.
Click to expand...

Here's the best I can find out on the fly. Well, first I found "as of" 2003 figures, which put Nintendo ahead worldwide, but here I found some supposed "end of 2005 figures" (ref: http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=601547 )

Worldwide Hardware Sales (End of September 2005)

PS2 96.01 million
Xbox 22.5 to 23 million
GameCube 19.31 million
Game Boy Advance 70.04 million
Nintendo DS 8.83 million
PSP 8.81 million
N-Gage 2 million
PSone 102.49 million

According to this, we see XBX at 22 million, with Gamecube at 19 million, a mere three million difference. While I do applaud Microsoft for making up the slack in the Euro and American regions while it has gained severe saggage in Japan, I do not concede that Microsoft, by any means, as "won". Are 2-3 million units REALLY worth 4 billion dollars? Are 2-3 million units really worth enforcing higher tariffs on third party accessory makers? Are 2-3 million units really worth ushering in an age of fixes and micro-payments which stack on a monthyl fee? Are 2-3 million units worth your competitor supposedly "losing out" when they make hundreds of millions of dollars in profit? Hmm.. trends, I notice them on a daily basis and I notice one here. A loser Nintendo is not.

Let's not forget the handheld market in which Sony recently tried to penetrate and absolutely failed, despite Nintendo offering its own competition in house with the new Nintendo DS (released to critical sales.. astounding and surpassing even my expecations).

Yes, I am well aware of the fact that my idea of a "fun" videogame seems shallow and uninformed to some. Japanese games, while obviously popular and excelling in their own right, simply do not incorporate themes or gameplay that I enjoy. I have no need or desire to be "saved," as I have played videogames all my life and indeed believe that I can separate the "bad" from the "good."

Ironically, the one Western company you mentioned I don't care for. :lol
Retro Studios, or at least the GC Metroid titles, failed to grasp my attention for any extended period of time. It was a solid game, but I just found it to be boring to the point where playing it became a chore.

To each his own... obviously. :lol
Click to expand...

This, of course, is pure opinion. My preference in games obviously differs from yours and that's about all there is to the situation here. I could argue with you for days regarding the superiority (and I would) of Eastern development, but I find it unnecessary. Very few companies do I have respect for in the west (Blizzard, Retro, etc).

:-)

 
I read an article a little while ago about the Xbox 360 that makes some interesting observations about "success" and the like. It also contains various data on systems sold and percent market share will I will quote here. The whole article can be found at http://www.gametunnel.com/html/section-printpage-126.html

I don't know this site well so it's credibility is unknown, but the figures seem reasonable enough to me. The sales are also as of 2005, but I noticed a rather large discrepency in the handheld numbers of units sold. The percents are near identical, but the numbers are off by about 3 mil.

In the spirit of beating a dead horse, I'll outline my side of things as best I can. I tried to make this as short as I could, but this post is not one for the weak...  :lol


Are 2-3 million units REALLY worth 4 billion dollars?
Click to expand...

Strategically, and long-term, I would obviously answer yes. I would also like to see some kind of source on exactly how much Microsoft lost (while I have no doubt it's in the billions, I try not to get into the habit of taking people's word for it). But undoubtedly Microsoft planned to lose money on the Xbox. This is Microsoft, they're in the console market for the money. The goals and aims they had set for the Xbox were, in my mind, to get a foothold in the market, establish a fan base, and grow it from there. This is a long-term plan that is obviously going to show a loss in the short term. The Allies lost many lives taking the beaches of Normandy, but if they hadn't made that sacrifice they'd had never liberated Berlin. That analogy really isn't comparable, except to illustrate that long term goals often mean short term loss.

Are 2-3 million units really worth enforcing higher tariffs on third party accessory makers?
Click to expand...

Third party accessories usually suck anyway. I only buy first party, tariffs on third party accessories does not affect or concern me in the least. Being able to buy an affordably priced console does. This decision, to me, is a positive one.

Are 2-3 million units really worth ushering in an age of fixes and micro-payments which stack on a monthyl fee?
Click to expand...

What you call "fixes" I call "improvements." They aren't necessary to enjoy the game on it's own, but at least the option is there for those that want to make use of it. It's not mandatory, if you don't want to pay for the extras then don't, but those that do can.

Are 2-3 million units worth your competitor supposedly "losing out" when they make hundreds of millions of dollars in profit?
Click to expand...

This is obviously the meat and potatoes of the arguement. The site I mentioned earlier sums up my feelings exactly:

it is important to note that sales doesn't = profit. For example, the Xbox has a narrow lead on the GameCube in terms of sales, but is 2 billion in the red while Nintendo has never had a negative quarter with GameCube.
Click to expand...

He then goes on to say:

instead of looking at profit, I choose sales as they show clearly what the public values.  Nothing speaks louder than where you put your money.
Click to expand...

In my opinion, that drives the point home, and in a nutshell that is what my entire arguement is based on. The console that can be considered the "loser" is the one that is least valued by the public, the one with the lowest sales. And when looking at sales and market share we find that:

Nintendo Gamecube: 18.8 million with 15% of the market share
Microsoft Xbox: 21.9 million with 18% of the market share.

So right off the bat we see that the public values the Xbox over the GC. Now, also keep in mind that before this generation Microsoft literally had 0% of the market share. So in one console generation Microsoft's market share has increased by 18%. Nintendo with their Nintendo 64 sold 32.9 million units with 23% of the market share. They declined in both system sales and in market share. So the public values the Xbox and PS2 more than the GC, the GC was Nintendo's worst console in terms of system sales and market share, and yet you still see the Gamecube as a success, as victor over the Xbox?

You also spoke of seeing trends, and certainly trends can be derived from this data. In fact, looking in terms of raw sales and market share Nintendo has actually been declining for four generations now. If this trend continues it will be harder and harder to hide behind a profit margin and say Nintendo "won" the console generation.

So to sum it all up. Microsoft gained 18% marketshare and sold 3 million more systems than Nintendo did with their GC. Nintendo lost 8% of the market and sold less systems than either Sony or Microsoft. Is losing marketshare and milllions of fans worth turning a profit in the next fiscal quarter?

Even if you answer "yes" to that (which in my opinion is not good business sense) then you still can't deny that the people have spoken, and with their hard earned dollars they have voted the Xbox and PS2 to be systems worth having over the GC. To say the GC didn't lose the console round because the company turned a profit doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
 
So to sum it all up. Microsoft gained 18% marketshare and sold 3 million more systems than Nintendo did with their GC. Nintendo lost 8% of the market and sold less systems than either Sony or Microsoft. Is losing marketshare and milllions of fans worth turning a profit in the next fiscal quarter?

Even if you answer "yes" to that (which in my opinion is not good business sense) then you still can't deny that the people have spoken, and with their hard earned dollars they have voted the Xbox and PS2 to be systems worth having over the GC. To say the GC didn't lose the console round because the company turned a profit doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Click to expand...

Bravo :D
 
stealth toilet said:
I read an article a little while ago about the Xbox 360 that makes some interesting observations about "success" and the like. It also contains various data on systems sold and percent market share will I will quote here. The whole article can be found at http://www.gametunnel.com/html/section-printpage-126.html

I don't know this site well so it's credibility is unknown, but the figures seem reasonable enough to me. The sales are also as of 2005, but I noticed a rather large discrepency in the handheld numbers of units sold. The percents are near identical, but the numbers are off by about 3 mil.

In the spirit of beating a dead horse, I'll outline my side of things as best I can. I tried to make this as short as I could, but this post is not one for the weak... :lol


Strategically, and long-term, I would obviously answer yes. I would also like to see some kind of source on exactly how much Microsoft lost (while I have no doubt it's in the billions, I try not to get into the habit of taking people's word for it). But undoubtedly Microsoft planned to lose money on the Xbox. This is Microsoft, they're in the console market for the money. The goals and aims they had set for the Xbox were, in my mind, to get a foothold in the market, establish a fan base, and grow it from there. This is a long-term plan that is obviously going to show a loss in the short term. The Allies lost many lives taking the beaches of Normandy, but if they hadn't made that sacrifice they'd had never liberated Berlin. That analogy really isn't comparable, except to illustrate that long term goals often mean short term loss.
Click to expand...

Of course you would, of course. Microsoft's "plan" is one that will continue to lead with losses unless something changes. Placing the X Box 360's performance and launch I don't foresee much of a chance. This is, of course, incorporating the fact that Microsoft has continued the path of expensive hardware, expensive games, expensive accessories (40-50 for a standard controller? . . no. . thanks?). More expensive everything. They continue with such a dastardly ploy as to release a "core" system they know no one is going to desire if only to raise their bottom line via accessory sales (trend showing?) which will receive a higher rate of sales this generation due to increased tarrifs to artificially lower competition (trend appearing?!) in order to help boast their failing "plan". Billion dollar company or not, if Microsoft continues to lose, the company will pull out. Microsoft is going to have much more trouble than the gaming front in the comings years as they continue to try to sell software former-no-name companies like Google release for free.

Third party accessories usually suck anyway. I only buy first party, tariffs on third party accessories does not affect or concern me in the least. Being able to buy affordably priced console does. This decision, to me, is a positive one.
Click to expand...

I concur. Third party accessories do suck. But the point is by and large their availability and the alternative solution within a fair pricing range - that's their advantage. A great many people take advantage of this and here's Microsoft's dirty way of flipping the coin as they jack up the price. Consider it for a moment, though I know you don't care.

In my opinion, that drives the point home, and in a nutshell that is what my entire arguement is based on. The console that can be considered the "loser" is the one that is least valued by the public, the one with the lowest sales. And when looking at sales and market share we find that:

Nintendo Gamecube: 18.8 million with 15% of the market share
Microsoft Xbox: 21.9 million with 18% of the market share.

So right off the bat we see that the public values the Xbox over the GC. Now, also keep in mind that before this generation Microsoft literally had 0% of the market share. So in one console generation Microsoft's market share has increased by 18%. Nintendo with their Nintendo 64 sold 32.9 million units with 23% of the market share. They declined in both system sales and in market share. So the public values the Xbox and PS2 more than the GC, the GC was Nintendo's worst console in terms of system sales and market share, and yet you still see the Gamecube as a success, as victor over the Xbox?

You also spoke of seeing trends, and certainly trends can be derived from this data. In fact, looking in terms of raw sales and market share Nintendo has actually been declining for four generations now. If this trend continues it will be harder and harder to hide behind a profit margin and say Nintendo "won" the console generation.

So to sum it all up. Microsoft gained 18% marketshare and sold 3 million more systems than Nintendo did with their GC. Nintendo lost 8% of the market and sold less systems than either Sony or Microsoft. Is losing marketshare and milllions of fans worth turning a profit in the next fiscal quarter?

Even if you answer "yes" to that (which in my opinion is not good business sense) then you still can't deny that the people have spoken, and with their hard earned dollars they have voted the Xbox and PS2 to be systems worth having over the GC. To say the GC didn't lose the console round because the company turned a profit doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Click to expand...

I think the best way to answer this statement is a quote from Iwata:
"I think the media will often to refer to Sony and Microsoft as game industry giants and it's true in the sense of the sizes of the companies that they really are giants. But to me the question is, among the software makers and who is really selling software, who is the giant?"

I think this best sums up the situation for Nintendo. Nintendo is a software king and this isn't something that's going to dissipate by purchasing poorly staffed studios from them (Rare, etc). I also absolutely enjoy the public propaganda that Microsoft engages in one way or the other. I viewed an EGM the other day with Silicon Knights' Too Human on the cover. It was a labeled thusly as "Microsoft's Ten Year Epic". First of all, this title has essentially nothing to do with Microsoft until recently, second of all, read the first point! It has nothing to do with Microsoft until recently! Microsoft will learn the hard way that throwing money out the window may land you "fans" (the kind that leave when they get bored with Madden 2006) temporarily, but when they manage to make a few mistakes, those fans will fly out the window.

I was reading a recent intruiging study the other day. Essentially it was a compilation of data that implied that the gaming market has been stagnant in the United States for many years now (much like how it's "shrinking" in Japan). While the data for how many consoles are sold look pretty, the amount of multi-console owners has increased dramatically. The amount of consoles in the home during the NES era was about 33 million, and the amount of people owning consoles (multi or single) now is STILL about 30-something million. I'd have to link you to the article.
 
(40-50 for a standard controller? . . no. . thanks?).
Click to expand...

Actually it's $35, Canadian. So I'm guessing it would be about $30 American. And last I checked GC controllers were the same price, perhaps $5 to $10 cheaper. Of course, I had to constantly replace my GC controllers, so I'd rather pay an extra $5 and have a controller that will last for more than a year.


I also absolutely enjoy the public propaganda that Microsoft engages in one way or the other.
Click to expand...

It's called advertising, every company does it, get used to it.

I think the best way to answer this statement is a quote from Iwata:
"I think the media will often to refer to Sony and Microsoft as game industry giants and it's true in the sense of the sizes of the companies that they really are giants. But to me the question is, among the software makers and who is really selling software, who is the giant?"
Click to expand...

Speaking of propaganda, this is the best spin doctoring I've heard in a long time. It's nothing but a "dastardly ploy" by Nintendo to draw attention away from the fact that their losing in terms of system sales. And of course they're going to have more software sales than Microsoft or Sony (though I'd like to see some numbers comparing their game sales with Rockstar's or Bungie's), Nintendo games are the only games worth having on the GC. Hell, they're practically the only games you can have on the GC! You complain about Microsoft keeping third parties out of the Xbox accessory market to turn a profit, how about Nintendo having virtually no third party software support for the GC and then tooting their own horn when they sell a ton of 1st party games? If Nintendo is such a software giant then they should get out of the console biz and make games for other consoles. Or are they too afraid that some real competition might negatively affect their software sales? People are buying Xboxes and PS2s because the games they want to play are on them, not on the GC.

Microsoft will learn the hard way that throwing money out the window may land you "fans" (the kind that leave when they get bored with Madden 2006) temporarily, but when they manage to make a few mistakes, those fans will fly out the window.
Click to expand...

Ya, I know what you mean. One console generation your company is on top of the world with 60% of the market share, the next generation it's confined to a meager 23% (Snes to N64, actual market share percents). You tend to forget the same "fans" that may fly out Msoft's window have already flown out of Nintendo's. Nintendo has already made the mistakes that Msoft might. The fact that Msoft might make mistakes does not negate the fact that their current fans used to be fans of Nintendo/Sony, and at the current time Nintendo has less fans (fickle though they may be) than either Sony or Microsoft. Nintendo is still the loser of the console war that waged on between Msoft, Sony, and themselves. If this has caused the gaming industry to head in the wrong direction, then people will let their outraged voices be heard by not purchasing their products. Capitalism 101. There's no need to speculate that Msoft is flooding the market with "dastardly ploys" to somehow subvert the gaming industry. If people don't want it, they won't buy it.
 
This is awesome. I'm glad I came back. I'll respond after work my good man! :-)! I'm thrilled.
 
:lol

This can only mean my logic is flawed or contradictory in some way, as nothing else from this thread would make you happy. Perhaps I shall have to concede a point, or maybe even the whole arguement. Stay tuned to find out, same bat time, same bat channel... :D
 
stealth toilet said:
:lol

This can only mean my logic is flawed or contradictory in some way, as nothing else from this thread would make you happy. Perhaps I shall have to concede a point, or maybe even the whole arguement. Stay tuned to find out, same bat time, same bat channel... :D
Click to expand...

No, I'm just really happy at the prospect of this forum feeling similar to how it used to for me. I'm sorry I haven't replied yet, I'm lazy in my continuing of things. But I'll get to it. I just enjoy the company! No flaw in logic, carry on!
 
Haha, ya, I must have misread what you said to begin with. I re-read your post afterwards and realized you just meant the forum in general made you happy. I gotta say, it's good to have you back, now I'm not the only person that goes on long winded opinionated rants. :lol
 
Well they said the DS wasn't the final name for that, but they kept it anyway. I do hope they keep the name Revolution for the system. It's been the code name for so long that it would feel weird to call it anything else.

I can't wait for it though. It's driving me crazy not being able to pre-order it at work since I know I'm going to buy it on launch.
 
Mai Valentine said:
Well they said the DS wasn't the final name for that, but they kept it anyway. I do hope they keep the name Revolution for the system. It's been the code name for so long that it would feel weird to call it anything else.

I can't wait for it though. It's driving me crazy not being able to pre-order it at work since I know I'm going to buy it on launch.
Click to expand...

I do so believe that you are right on this one, and I concur. It's just been too long and the market is too saturated with the name. Which is fine! It's a great name! ;-)
 
Curious sidenote:

What does DS stand for? I heard somewhere that it didn't stand for dual-screen, which has left me completely baffled.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top