Nintendo Apologetic

Another game review?

2009-02-25T22:47:00.001-08:00

So here I am, returned from my long hiatus. Don't worry, I am still a Ninty fan. Of course I have played through a few games since last we spoke the most notable of which is Metroid Prime 3. I could ramble on for quite a while about this game but if you are like me, you have played it, or read reviews about it, or both. I don't want to give you another review, and you don't want to read one. What I will write about is Nintendo's approach to this title and how I feel it has changed gaming as a whole.

The first thing you notice about any game in the Metroid Prime series is that there is a level of ambience above and beyond any other game out there. The arcitecture of ancient ruins, the sounds, reactions from the avatar, reflections in the visor, all exude such a level of polish and style and reflect nature to the point where you dont notice anything missing from the game world. You walk past a steam vent and your visor fogs, if its raining you have rain droplets on your mask, when you take a bad hit Samus instinctively brings her hand up to protect her face. This atmosphere permeates the entire game. Every game, at it's root, is an imaginary world, fleshed out by imagination and idealism. It has it's own rules and values and must find a niche in which it can live comfortably. The Metroid series has always been pretty cliche when it comes to levels. A lava level, and ice level, underwater, derelict space cruiser... Yet it is a testament to the series that it never feels forced, each level exists naturally and they coexist without making the gamer wonder why because of the flow of the game.

There is a lot of running and gunning in MP3 as well as the other games in the series but at it's heart, Prime is a puzzle game, not an FPS and this shows though in every room as you are given very natural obstacles to an obvious objective. 'This is where you must go and this is what is stopping you, now figure out how to get around or through it.' Do you need a new weapon or ability? Or do you just need to take a step back and think how the tools you already have will get you where you need to go? Exploration is key to noticing subtle clues that you would surely miss if you go blazing past them. In fact, a secondary objective in every MP game is to catalog every lifeform, technology and ancient clue in a rather comprehensive database. Scanning enemies will oftentimes reveal weaknesses that will help you detroy them more easily. It is better to think of Metroid as a puzzle series with action sprinkled in rather than the other way around and this thins the walls between two nearly opposite genres.

Perhaps the greatest addition to gaming is the use of the Wii-mote to aim and shoot. The technology isn't perfect, but after a very short while it feels tighter and more natural than anything else on a console add to it the opening of doors, pulling levers, using the grapple beam and many other actions that feel much more interactive and the level of realism gains another point or two. Of course, technology will only get better and this game has given developers and gamers alike a great reason to try the next iterations.

History #2

2007-03-08T00:51:00.001-08:00

As promised here is the second part of my last blog, namely the history of Nintendo and more specifically, some of the visionaries responsible for it's transformation from a maker of playing cards, to it's present day videogame glory. When we left off I had just mentioned the name Gunpei Yokoi and charged him with the salvation of the Nintendo corporation.

Gunpei was a mechanical genius who worked on the assembly line machinery. After the crash of the hanafuda industry Yamauchi was reaching for anything to keep his company afloat. The answer was a toy that Gunpei built in his spare time that was an extending arm consisting of a latticework of rods. He was charged with making it ready for the upcoming Christmas season and the Ultra Hand was born to much success. Of course Gunpei was immediately moved from maintenance to development and he craeted quite a few mechanical toys, games, and puzzles.

One day while riding the train home on his daily commute he spied a man fiddling with his calculator and he decided that perhaps he could make a handheld game that tired workers could play with on their way home from work. This idea was realized with the Game and Watch series which were released beginning in 1980. These handhelds only played a single game, had a simple LCD screen and backgrounds for each game were placed behind the screen to add color. Control at the time was accomplished by a joystick which Gunpei insisted was too bulky. His answer was the d-pad, a low-cost, effective solution that has been used on virtually every controller regardless of company or console since it's inception.

The next big contribution he made to the world was as Nintendo was ramping up to release the original NES in 1983. The videogame industry had been experiencing a slump. So much so that retailers were refusing to stock new product. This time Gunpei saved the day by designing R.O.B. the scary little robot that we have all seen pictures of. R.O.B. was packaged with the NES and convinced retailers that it was a robotic entertainment system and the system was allowed into stores. In it's first year the NES sold over 1 million units, a staggering record at the time due to the market being flooded with crappy consoles and worse games. R.O.B. was just a marketing ploy, but a very good one. The robot was quickly retired but he lives on in our dreams (scary).

Around this time Gunpei met a young man named Shigeru Miyamoto who he worked with. They collaborated on a few game designs and both provided the inspiration for games that would become Mario, Donkey Kong. After Miyamoto left to head his own development team in 1984 Gunpei went on to produce Metroid, Kid Icarus and Fire Emblem.

In 1989 Gunpei created the product that will live in history books long after we all are gone; the Game Boy. Gunpei had hit upon an ideology he dubbed "Lateral Thinking of Withered Technology" meaning to take a technology that is old and reliable and find a new and exciting way to use it. This ideology remains a staple of Nintendo today and has driven the success of the DS and the Wii. At the time the 'withered technology' was LCD displays. Gunpei paired the portable Game and Watch idea with the interchangeability of NES cartridges and a gaming revolution was born. He refused to release a color version at the time as it used too much battery power and was much costlier. He turned out to be extremely inspired in this decision as the Atari Lynx and Sega Game Gear both were released and failed due to high cost and power consumption (the Lynx only had four hours of play time on 6 AAs).

In 1995 Gunpei made his first misstep. He strayed from his own theory of low-cost, prolific-technology products to produce the Virtual Boy. Most of us hopefully have had the chance to stick our faces into one of these. The experience was a stereoscopic videogame system unlike anything ever to grace the market and light years ahead of it's time. The system was in monochrome and the inexperience of VR coupled with the bulky, uncomfortable form factor of the console had it off the market before it had been out a year. Somehow this one mistake undid the confidence of some higher-ups at Nintendo despite all his former successes and Gunpei Yokoi was ostracized to the point where he handed in his recognition in 1996, days after another of his projects, the Game Boy Pocket was released.

On October 4th, 1997 Gunpei was sideswiped by a car and died two hours later as a result. His death was a loss the the world at large. With so many innovations under his belt who can deny that he had more in his mind, waiting for their chance to shine? He was a great man, and like all most great men his contribution to the world will outlive his memory. There will be two more history blogs in this series. The next one will be all about Shigeru Miyamoto, and the last will focus on Satoru Iwata. Expect them to pop up soon.

Some History

2007-03-07T11:28:00.001-08:00

I thought it might be a bit of fun to go through a history series on my blog. I want to just go through some historical facts of some of the movers and shakers of Nintendo (which just so happen to be movers and shakers of the industry as a whole).

If we are going to delve into a company as deeply-rooted and adapted as Nintendo we need to at least briefly touch on it's inception.

Nintendo was founded in 1889 under the name "Nintendo Koppai" by a man named Fusajiro Yamauchi. Working alone, Fusajiro made hanafuda cards by hand from the bark of mulberry trees. The quality of the cards was such that assistants needed to be hired to keep up with demand. Nintendo grew steadily until Fusajiro's son-in-law Sekiryo Kaneda/Yamauchi took over control of the company in 1929.

Sekiryo was also in charge of Japan's largest card maker at the time and in 1933 he created a joint-venture corporation renaming it "Yamauchi Nintendo and Company"

In 1949 Sekiryo retired and would have passed the company on to his son-in-law Shikanojo Inaba. Shikanojo, however had abandoned his wife and son to be raised by Sekiryo so the company passed instead to Hiroshi Yamauchi, Sekiryo's grandson and Fusajiro's great-grandson.

Hiroshi was president for 53 years and saw Nintendo through it's most tumultuous times. He was responsible for the corporation during it's transition from a smallish hanafuda card maker into the multi-billion dollar video game company that it is today. He stepped down in 2002, giving control to Satoru Iwata but remaining chairman of the board until 2005 after he felt that the company was in good hands. He turned down his retirement pension which was $10 million or so, giving it back to the company. That might be hard for you or I to do but Hiroshi is worth a cool 1.8 billion (_, _ _ _, _ _ _, _ _ _!!!) and many people don't know that he owns the majority of the Seattle Mariners baseball team.

Hiroshi took control of Nintendo at the age of 21 after his grandfather suffered a stroke. He was very "old-school" Japanese and before his grandfather died Hiroshi had him fire relatives working in the company so that there would be no one to vie for power. Still, his business instincts were exceptional and led Nintendo to where it is today. During and after the 1964 Olympics in Tokyo the playing card market collapsed and Hiroshi attempted to save his company by diversifying into everything from children's games, to taxis, to 'love hotels' (Look that up on your own).

The salvation of Nintendo came through a single man named Gunpei Yokoi, who at the time was working on the assembly line of Nintendo. The next history blog will be all about him.

Thus ends the pre-history of Nintendo as a videogame company. Let me know if this was enjoyable. I like finding out the pertinent historical facts behind some of these figures. In a way it makes the things they did seem possible and yet equally profound.

Videogames and Violence

2007-03-01T20:00:00.001-08:00

There has been a very real and loud debate going on for years now about the connection, or lack thereof, between video games and violence. I don't want to spend too much time on this as it is something that someone will say something relevant about every few weeks.

If you haven't been keeping up on things heres the scoop: people have been dying or getting hurt. A small fraction of people dying or getting hurt involve children/adolescents. A small fraction of those incidents are tied to video games. Certain other people are claiming that video games make children more violent. Thats the story. Here are some excerpts from an article I came across on IGN the other day.

In a recent issue of the American Sociological Association's Context magazine, sociologist Karen
Sternheimer put some heavy doubt into the theories that videogame violence directly result in real-world violence. Sternheimer claims that there is no such correlation, and that the reality might be exactly the opposite.

Sternheimer cited as evidence of this trend the fact that as annual sales of videogames and accessories has risen to over $10 billion, juvenile homicide arrests have fallen 77%.

In a very frank and forthright manner, Sternheimer stated, "If we want to understand why young people become homicidal, we need to look beyond the games they play."

Rather than paying attention to more pertinent issues that might nurture violence -- such
as poverty, instability, domestic abuse, unemployment, and mental illness -- reactionaries have been directing their ire at the games industry, effectively exonerating these other factors of their impact.

"It is equally likely that more aggressive people seek out violent entertainment," Sternheimer said. "After adult rampage shootings in the workplace, which happen more often than school shootings, reporters seldom mention if the shooters played video games."

Sternheimer seemed to disagree with the analytical methods of a 2001 study which found that videogames did increase aggressive behavior, stating: "They don't offer much insight as to why a few isolated kids, and not the millions of others who play these games, decided to pick up
real weapons and shoot real people."

I couldn't agree with this woman more. I remember many a stressful day that I would come home and UNWIND by plugging in an FPS and killing nazis or zombies or nazi-zombies. I used violent video games as an outlet to get those feelings out in a safe and reasonable way. I still use video games that way.

I also agree 100% that more violent people will automatically seek out more violent ways to entertain themselves. We hear the Columbine massacre being blamed on video games but I see two sick and twisted kids who weren't delusional, they knew they weren't in a video game. They were just sadistic and wanted to hurt people. If they hadn't played video games they would have integrated ideas from books or movies into their plans. The truth is we make our personalities by judging information and either assimilating or rejecting that information. Bad people latch onto bad things because they like it. People who DO the kinds of violent things contained in some video games are obviously bad people. I don't see how there is an argument.

There are differences between video games and movies or books sure, as there are differences between all forms of media. The War of the Worlds was acted out on a radio station in 1938 by Orson Welles and panic ensued all over the nation due to the immersive nature of the radio at that time. You and I may judge a videogame to be more realistic or more immersive than a radio show but they arent any more real to us than the radio was to people in 1938. Are contemporary videogames more immersive than contemporary movies? It's hard to say. On the one hand videogame have a person controlling a character and 'acting out' in a violent manner. On the other hand suspension of disbelief still remains regardless of what you are doing or watching. Your mind knows it isn't real.

I know what I think and how I feel about this issue and it is very simple. Videogames have a ratings system, just as movies have a rating system. Parents need to know what their children are doing and they have a responsibility to keep children playing games that are appropriate for their level of maturity. I can understand a seven year old thinking they can drive because they play a racing game. Small children should never be handed the keys to your vehicle. Or the keys to your gun safe. Adolescent children definitely know how to hurt people, and what reality is. They are their own persons and should be largely responsible for their own actions.

Oh, and check this out...

You can see the Wii is on there twice, and Britney Spear's hair beat out the 360 and PS3. Thats has to hurt...

A Brief Follow-Up

2007-02-27T15:26:00.001-08:00

I ran across an article published today that makes some of the same points I did with my blog yesterday. It mainly makes the point that companies should be focused more on being independently profitable rather than concerned with holding more market share than their competition. The crux of the article is here.

"The harm that competitor-oriented objectives can cause the companies that pursue them was the subject of a December 4, 2006, article in The New Yorker by James Surowiecki, the
magazine’s business writer. Surowiecki describes how Sony, with its PlayStation 3, and Microsoft, maker of the Xbox 360, are beating each other’s brains out trying to capture the biggest share of the video-game market.

Meanwhile, third-place Nintendo, with its new game console called Wii (pronounced “wee”), has quietly become the most profitable game console company in Japan.

Nintendo “has not just survived out of the spotlight; it has thrived”, Surowiecki writes. “It has $5 billion in the bank from years of solid profits, and this past year, though it has spent heavily on the launch of the Wii, it made close to a billion dollars in profit and saw its stock price rise by 65%. Sony’s game division, by contrast, barely eked out a profit and Microsoft’s reportedly
lost money. Who knew bringing up the rear could be so lucrative?”

My own comments are obviously in my previous blog, but this article was so in-line with my points that it had to be shared.

Short Vs. Long-Term Console Life

2007-02-27T00:01:00.001-08:00

Phil Harrison, Sony big-wig said a couple of things lately that I feel like addressing. The first is an off-handed statement about the supposed longevity of the PS3 Vs the Wii.

“I think Nintendo, although I am very respectful of the innovation in Wii, and I think everybody should be respectful of it, I’m not sure that it has the technology base to propel that platform in the long-term. So I think their platform lifecycle is inherently going to be shorter, so they could have learned from us in terms of the high technology approach.”

The life of a console is dictated by a simple cost/benefit ratio. A corporation exists to make a profit. In regards to consoles a typical profit chart would be in the red for a period of time. This is typically because of the monies spent on research and development of the console, and for the cutting edge technology and components used in the manufacturing. Typically a console is sold for less money than the unit cost the corporation to manufacture.

The second phase is after the components drop in price because of increased availability and improvements in assembly. Eventually there is a crossover point where the corporation begins to make more in the sale of a unit than it cost to manufacture but the corporation still has not recouped the research and development costs.

The third (and every corporation hopes, the longest) phase is when all their numbers are in the green because they have earned back their R&D costs and component/assembly prices have continued to drop making each unit produce a net profit.

Sony has stated over and over that the PS3 will be around for 10 years. Its easy to see why they hope it will happen. The PS2 has only made it into the third phase in the last year or so. Sony doesn't make detailed information available often but we know they barely made back (in total) what they spent (in total) for the PS2. Not having a long-term phase three product hurts Sony's ability to continue R&D for future products and is just a step away from putting a department in a deficit.

Every console manufacturer in this business is already hard at work designing the NEXT console but when that console launches years from now it will contain cutting-edge tech, not stuff that we have now. Obviously the designs are in a very fluid form now, and will slowly solidify the nearer we get to the launch of a new product.

When a console is released it represents a sizable investment for the corporation and steps are taken to protect that investment. Marketing is going on to push the consoles out the door because even if the sale of a new phase one unit represents a loss, the software purchased to play on it will hit it's own crossover point almost immediately, bringing money back into the corporation's coffers. Peripherals also usually represent a monetary gain as the R&D costs are typically small change compared to the console.

Another way they protect their investments is to compete technologically with each other. Nintendo has stated that they have removed themselves from the competition by providing a cheaper, less powerful machine focused on the gaming experience. If, however, the Wii was exactly the same as it is today but with N64 graphics, units wouldn't be selling. At all... So while they say they aren't competing graphically with the other big boys it is more of a gradient scale because the fact is that they have lost customers who feel that they would rather have a console with HD output. They will continue to lose customers to this fact. The majority of people though will find it more cost effective to buy a much cheaper, somewhat less powerful machine. It happens every day.

Let me draw a ready comparison. I looked up some pricing for a segment of the technology market that I would classify as very volatile; video cards. I just looked up prices for the very popular GeForce cards. Their current top of the line is the 8800 gtx weighing in at $555. The 8800 gts is only slightly less powerful and launched at almost the same time, yet it only costs $294. Last years models range in price from $268-$44. The available models from the two previous generation were around $50-$30, meaning within 18 to 24 months a brand new product is brought in line with products from three years prior.

This comparison is important because it spans the technology industry. Blue Ray is expensive now, but in a couple years (if it manages to beat out HD-DVD which I wouldn't bet on) it will drop drastically in price and that particular component of the PS3 or any device containing it will drop comparatively.

The cost/benefit scale for replacing a console becomes skewed when the console reaches phase three because you now have access to new technologies that you can pack into a new machine, which brings us to the most important way to protect your investment; keep releasing new hardware. You phase out an old product and start the cycle fresh with one BIG difference, an installed base. If you can manage to sway people to your product lineup and make your new machine backwards compatible you will already have millions of people who can enjoy your new product without the outlay of cash needed to buy a console, some peripherals AND a few games to play. And as the first few months of a console release are typically meager on the the software release side they will have games available to stave off the boredom that might have them turning to a competitor.

The PS3 won't be Sony's flagship for ten years. It's not impossible, just not fiscally feasible. They want to have a longer phase three to boost profits but Microsoft and Nintendo are sure to release new consoles in the typical 5-6 year time frame and they will have newer technology than the PS3 currently has, giving the PS3 only one advantage of being cheaper as the PS3 will have dropped in price to the consumer in 5 years. But the disparity between the outdated PS3 versus the next generation consoles will woo consumers away from the PS3 and its software forcing Sony to release a new console to compete for consumer dollars.

Sony wants their console to last for 10 years, but they have to dance to the beat of their competitors. The PS3 won't last a decade. Not this generation, maybe the PS4 will have a better chance.

In stark contrast I will quickly point out Nintendo which launched the Wii with last year's graphics card, so to speak. They went directly into phase two as they immediately made a profit off each unit and only need to recoup their R&D costs. With the majority of Nintendo games being produced in-house they will be in phase three probably before their competitors meaning that at least in regards to profit, the cheaper, somewhat underpowered machine beats out the cutting edge product on the bottom line. Nintendo has produced about the same net profit as the whole of Sony for the last few years even with it's "terrible" Gamecube sales. Nintendo produces a 20% net profit which is a level of efficiency many corporations cannot achieve.

As a side note the Wii has sold 4 million units worldwide, half as much as the 360 and almost three times more than the PS3. If sales continue at this rate Nintendo could outsell the 360 by the end of the year if software support remains strong. We will see.

Mini game review : Wii Play

2007-02-17T12:03:00.001-08:00

So I picked up a new game the other day. I was waiting on getting my fourth controller because the game has one packed in. The game is Wii Play. It has 9 mini games on it, most of which started out as tech demos at E3. Alot of people are saying that its not a very good stand-alone game and if it ddnt come with a controller it wouldnt be worth picking up. I agree that the compilation may not be worth a full $50 but some of the mini games are extremely fun and well polished. The one for which I am blogging is called Tanks.

Tanks is the kind of game that new gamers and hardcore alike can get into. It is very similar in game mechanics to a game that many of you have played on the 360 called geometry wars. Basically you drive your tank around with the analog stick and you point at the screen to aim your gun. You can shoot with the B trigger and drop proximity mines with the A button.

The enemy tanks vary in ability from stationary to mine-laying, to tanks that shoot rocket propelled rounds. Each is designated by a unique color. The graphical feel of the game is that of toys shooting at each other. The tanks look like little toy tanks and levels have obstacles in the form of wooden blocks. The only thing that detracts from the 'toy' theme is the giant explosions and round contrails that quickly fill the screen.

Bullets ricochet geometrically once before detonating on the second surface so there is quite a bit of strategy involved in trying the bounce your rounds around obstacles. Mines will destroy certain blocks opening new paths and even though you can block of certain routes with a mine they detonate on a timer as well as with proximity meaning they will not be permanent obstacles.

The levels quickly rise in difficulty from a couple 'dumb' tanks to many 'smart' tanks with varying degrees of aggressiveness. The last level is devoid of cover and has two white tanks which turn invisible as soon as the level starts. You can only locate them by where the bullets are coming from and the tread tracks each tank lays down. You start out with three lives and gain a new life for every 5 levels you clear.

On top of it all there is a two-player mode in which each player has their own tank and they try to #1 clear the levels and #2 get a higher kill count than their buddy. Friendly fire is definitely turned ON and matches can become intense as players turn on each other in order to eliminate a rival for kill count. If one player is eliminated but all enemy tanks are cleared both players are still on the next map. If both players are destroyed the game is over meaning that while you may try and stop each other from getting kills in the earlier levels, you will find yourself forced to get over the butt hurt of getting stabbed in the back by your buddy in order to clear later levels.

I discovered a great new way to play this game the other day. One player holds the nunchuk and the other holds the controller so you have a driver and a gunner, each putting the other in a position of complete trust. It is incredibly fun and a completely different way of playing the game.

This game can only be described as extreme fun due to it's simplicity paired with a high level of tactical awareness. If you are looking to get an extra controller for the Wii this is definitely a great opportunity to pick one up.

Some of the other games on the compilation that deserve a mention are laser hockey, target practice and the billiards game. All of which would benefit from options to spice things up a bit. For example the billiards game is 9 ball only, and the laser hockey is set at an 8 point game. As far as target practice goes, the game is extremely fun but over too quickly and it would have been nice to see more ducks, and the dog. How can you have a Nintendo made throwback to Duck Hunt without that dang dog laughing at you when you miss?

If you need another controller, I highly recommend Wii Play as an addition to your game library.

Miss me?

2007-01-26T00:18:00.000-08:00

OK, so I have been away for a while. Don't hate me, I have moved a couple of times and had no internet for most of the time. My life has been sorta upside down as well.

The upshot is that I didn't blog about the Wii launch. At this point it doesn't really matter what I write, Nintendo was (and is) a screaming success. They sold 1.2 million units worldwide from their launch in November through the end of the year. To date they have sold about 4 million units worldwide in the 2 months since they came to market. In contrast the PS3 has sold about 1.5 million units, which according to Kutaragi could have sold at a much higher price. After all, how can you compare eating at a fancy resturant to eating at fast food? They should want to get another job just to pay for it.

In case you didn't know, the Nintendo Wii seems to be the next gaming craze sweeping the globe. Try this experiment (I have tried it many times to always the same result): Go to a game store (or call if you are lazy) and ask how many Wii's they have in stock. I can tell you the answer.... Zero. Now ask how many PS3s. They will have a few. Now put this in the perspective of Nintendo turning out twice as many units as Sony and you will begin to get what I mean.

And Sony is flopping in a most dramatic way. A fun little quote I saw the other day was from Gabe Newell, co-founder and managing director of Valve (Half-life). “The PS3 is a total disaster on so many levels, I think It’s really clear that Sony lost track of what customers and what developers wanted. I’d say, even at this late date, they should just cancel it and do a “do over”. Just say, “This was a horrible disaster and we’re sorry and we’re going to stop selling this and stop trying to convince people to develop for it”. The happy story is the Wii. I’m betting that by Christmas of next year, the Wii has a larger installed base than the 360. Other people think I’m crazy. I really like everything that Nintendo is doing. “

It is becoming more and more obvious that developers don't want to spend the extra money and time developing for the finicky PS3. On the other hand, the Wii is selling (surprisingly?) so well that publishers and developers are sitting up and wondering how they can get a piece of that pie. Money is flying folks.

Anyway, I gotta get to bed kids. I will certainly be back online from time to time and I have several things I really want to blog about so check in once in a while.

Here we go...

2006-05-11T16:07:00.001-07:00

It's time to remind everyone why you come to my site. The reason is that it is not specifically "news" oriented. Rather it is based on the marketing and buisiness side of the gaming market. That doesn't mean I don't get excited about the news, on the contrary. What it means is that I try and think about what we hear as news and then give my personal view on how it will affect the gaming industry. This is the major reason I am so excited about Nintendo, because the things they do CHANGE the industry. They were the company that introduced the d-pad, the trigger style button, the analogue stick, camera control on the 64 evolved into the dual analogue, rumble pak, the list goes on and on if you start to count some of the gameplay implementations that Nintendo introduced. There is no other company on the face of the planet that has changed gaming nearly so much as they have, and it is the thing I most respect about them. It is the reason I have this blog in the first place.

Now I want to make it clear that I don't consider myself a 'fanboy' because I like Nintendo for legitimate reasons and in a like manner, the things that I don't like about Sony and Microsoft are equally legitimate. If I could bring one console company back from the dead it would definately be SEGA as they are the company next in line based on how many gameplay and hardware innovations they have made such as shoulder buttons, first color handheld, first online capabilities, first CD drive on a system, etc. SEGA and Nintendo were bitter rivals but I think I would love to have a SEGA console right now and if they were making a next gen system it would probably be on my list because I could bet you that it would bring new things to the industry.

Having said that I would like to give my take on the E3 press conferences as well as some of the breaking news. First this whole Sony implementing tilt sensors in their controller. Sony says that they were toying with the idea long before TGS in November but it is easy to say that Nintendo influenced them to go for it. Speculation since E3 2005 was that the Wii controller would have tilt sensors, it was what made the most sense when they spouted off about making their controllers different. Even if they had the idea on their own, which is almost laughable given the timing of the whole situation, they still waited for Nintendo to take all the heat about their "retarded" controller. Nintendo defended itself and only when the waters calmed and Sony saw that it was good did they hop on board, no risk and no shame I might add. But there is a bit more to the story than first meets the eye. The PS2 DualShock controller is considered to be one of the finest controllers available, but something about the rumble feature infringes on patents filed by Immersion Corp. I don't know more detail than that but last year Sony was fined over $90 million (000,000!!!!) for this infringement and was denied permission to sell the controller and quite a few games in the US market. They appealed the courts decision but it has only delayed the probably inevitable outcome. Now we see the PS3 controller with a tilt sensor and by the way "rumble interferes with the sensors so it has been removed from our controllers." Does this seem convenient to anyone else? The link I found is here. And how many people will miss the now commonplace rumble feedback we have all grown so accustumed to?

Next up is the press conferences. The most new information regarding hardware was released by Sony only because they told us the release date (November 17th) and the price tag ($500 or $600 depending on the package you pick.) Nintendo didn't give us much in their press conference and neither did Microsoft. All in all the press conferences were rather uneventful. The crowd favorite was Nintendo though if you are wondering.

The last secret regarding the Wii controller is a speaker on the controller itself, this may seem weird or stupid but I think it will be cool. I mean when you shoot the sound would come out of the controller, when you fish in Zelda the casting of the line and the sound of the reel are heard on this speaker, it sort of elevates surround sound just a tiny bit. Not really a huge innovation but I think it will add to gaming. I of course, was hoping for an announcement about stereoscopic vision being added back into gaming but no such luck. This doesn't mean however that such technology won't still come out on the Revolution. I said a minute ago that I try and put the news into a perspective of how the industry is moving. Nintendo doesn't need to market stereo vision, if they had it in the works and they announced it every hardcore gamer would find out about it within 48 hours, thats how tight the gaming industry is. The people that Nintendo are marketing to are non-gamers, people who might likely be put off by space age goggles. At the same time Sony had JUST announced that they were ingeniously ripping off Nintendo's controller idea (and doing a lame job of it as you can read about in my last blog). Why would Nintendo want to give their competition any more time to ready their own responses to their disruptive technologies? They could hold on to this secret up to a month before launch and it would do them much more good than harm. Now don't take me the wrong way, maybe Nintendo is doing this and maybe they aren't but we have heard a lot of rumors and weird quotes from industry leaders that back it up. Nintendo themselves clearly stated that they had "not revealed everything with the controller" and that there was a huge secret left and they made it sound alot like they were two different things. Furthermore they have stated that the Wii can output to a computer screen. Stereoscopic glasses are technically identical to computer screens but quite a bit different from TVs. I would say at this point that stero vision is not any less likely or more likely to be real after not having heard about it from Nintendo this E3.

Next I want to show this: This is a controller shell prototype for the Wii controller. Made by Nintendo this bad boy holds the controller securely and turns it into a lightgun. It also has an analogue stick meaning it could be used in place of the nunchuck attachment for games like Red Steel and Metroid Prime 3. You can see how the trigger button on the controller could act as a secondary fire button with ease and I think this attachment would add a lot to some of the FPS games coming for the Wii.

Now about games, almost every single game for the Wii is totally fresh and new. Even the games based on existing genres feel brand new thanks to the incredible new controller. Furthermore, the proprietary nature of the Wii controller make it veritably impossible to port games from the Wii on to any other system but the 'normal' controller for the Wii makes it possible to port games from other systems to the Wii. Remember though that the best games on the Wii will be ones that take advantage of the new controller meaning that all the best titles will be exclusive titles for the Wii. I think Peter Moore (VP Microsoft games) said it best when he said "Tell me why you would buy a $600 PS3? People are going to buy two (machines.) They’re going to buy an Xbox and they’re going to buy a Wii … for the price of one PS3." Thank you Peter.

Sooner than expected...

2006-05-08T22:20:00.000-07:00

It seems Sony thought Nintendo was on to something with their new controller. So much so that Sony has put a 6 way tilt sensor in their own PS3 controllers. This is of course expected, but still cheeses me off as it is one more example of a company not having the balls to come up with (or implement) a new technology until Nintendo puts everything on the line and stakes their whole reputation on it to find out if people will respond positively, then, when they do who do you see jumping on the bandwagon? Sony. Of course Microsoft is in a little world of their own still believing that Nintendo are a bunch of idiots, I wonder what they are thinking now? I bet they are saying "Ah, our number one perceived competitor thinks that whole motion sensing thing might be a good idea. Crap."

Now don't freak out. Sony's controller is very low-tech compared to Nintendo's. The Sony controller only has tilt sensors whereas the Wiimote can not only detect TILT, but also the controllers position in real space meaning the Star Wars exclusive I just blogged about can ONLY be made on the Nintendo and can only work with Nintendo's controller as far as the lightsaber goes AND as far as the 'point-and-click' lightgun characteristics of the Wiimote. Not to mention that the nunchuck attachment for the Wii has the same 6 way tilt sensor in it meaning that you will have two 6 way tilts as well as being able to ditect the main controller in real space. Sony's controller is sort of a cheap knock-off. They are trying to steal some of the big N's thunder but I don't expect it will work

Don't forget that Nintendo has been saving the best for last, so according to them what they consider to be the best secret is still to be unveiled tomorrow in 10 and a half hours. According to most people Sony had a very poor press conference this year. Just like you can read about in my E3 predictions they showed mostly tech demos and basically blew alot of hot air around, nobody hardly cheered except at a couple of games. If you missed it the PS3 will be released this November and will cost $500 for the base unit and $600 for the premier version, taking a page out of Microsoft's book.

It begins...

2006-05-07T22:35:00.000-07:00

I just found out about a confirmation of a Star Wars exclusive for the Wii, lightsaber battles and all, from a very trusted source over at the former Definitive Revolution Speculation you can link to on the right. He has debunked countless phonies on the web so I find it impossible that he would stake his reputation on anything other than fact. Expect more Wii news to trickle in until Tuesday cores your brain out.

Some blurbs.

2006-05-06T07:27:00.000-07:00

Hey I was surfing around and caught a few blurbs that I want to post about the first is from Brian Farrell, president and CEO of THQ. He was talking about a Spongebob game of all things but had this to say about the Wii. "One of the things we like about that platform is the development costs…on the Wii are nowhere near what they are on the PS3 and Xbox 360. That’s something that’s quite encouraging...[The Wii] wasn’t a whole new programming environment. So we had a lot of tools and tech that work in that environment. So those costs–and again, I hate these broad generalizations–but they could be as little as a third of the high-end next-gen titles… Maybe the range is a quarter to a half. "

Of course this is what Nintendo has been saying from the get go but it is very good to hear it from someone who is unnafiliated and hence, unbiased. One of the things I love about Nintendo is that they don't blow a bunch of smoke around. Either you agree with them, or you don't, but they don't exagerrate about what their hardware can do, in fact, they usually underestimate their hardware from a 'power' standpoint. Alot of people thought that the Gamecube would be underpowered when compared to the current gen but they were surprised when quite a few Gamecube titles ended up looking better than Xbox and PS2 titles.

The second comment I wanted to post really made me think about MY reactions to some of the announcements Nintendo has made recently. Here is Greg Szemiot, Director of Crossbeam Studios Entertainment. "Just like everything else Wii related, the name caught me off guard, and I think I had the same initial reaction as everyone else. When the controller was shown, a slight sinking feeling. when the specs were shown, a slight sinking feeling. when the name was revealed, a slight sinking feeling. So why am I supporting Wii after all those sinking feelings? Becasue that only lasts until we understand the reasoning behind it" I realised that I had gone through ALL those same feelings. When I saw the controller I was thinking "WHAT?" I mean, Nintendo had told us time and again that they wanted something simpler than today's norm, but nothing could really prepare me. By the end of Iwata's speech however, I was VERY excited about the new controller and it's possibilities. The quotes here and there about the power of the Wii was also sort of disheartening, and I don't even place much stock in graphical power. But as I came to understand the reasoning behind WHY it was underpowered I quickly came to not only accept this reasoning, but to agree with it wholeheartedly.

I think about how I feel about the name "Wii". When I first heard about it, it was through the little video that Nintendo released. I wasn't thinking 'that sounds like wee' I was thinking how strange it was. It took getting around the internet and hearing the opinions of others that really got me thinking that it was a bad move. It wasn't a bad move because of the way I feel about it but rather because I was wondering how many kids will never talk about Wii or get one because other kids make fun of it. That and the fact that I would have named it something different makes me dislike the name.

On the other hand, all Nintendo needs to do to get over this is be perfect. If they can show us all why their console is the best without peer and gamers will flock to it, because gamers want to play games, and they want to have fun. Maybe when we understand the reasoning behind the name we will accept it, and perhaps agree with it too.

OFFICIAL RELEASE DATE AND PRICE

2006-05-04T05:36:00.000-07:00

June 11th will mark the release of the DS Lite in the US. The price will be a cool $129.99. The only confirmed launch color is white. This is official. So like, 38 days.

WTF?!?

2006-05-02T19:32:00.000-07:00

It's not that I haven't heard. I mean really, how could you miss the splash that "Wii" has made? The reason my blog hasn't been updated to reflect something so intimately connected to Nintendo is because I have been lost down in the bottom of a bucket of Ben & Jerrys ever since I heard the news. Wii, Wii, Wii all the way to the psychiatrist.

Don't get me wrong, I will own a Wii. I swear I will have it in my house the day it hits the market. This doesn't change the incredible hardware or the incredible gaming opportunities that the Wii will have, but I will be reserving a "Nintendo" and when I go to pick it up I will ask for "my new Nintendo" console. And I will buy two, so that I can melt one down into a miniature urinal will real flushing action.

Now there is a movement out there. Basically a group of Nintendites who are in system shock over this announcement. They say that the name "Wii" has not been reserved or trademarked in America or Japan and on average it takes 25 months or so to pend a trademark. I must admit, I have a darker side to me, a side that reminds everyone why the word "fan" is short for "fanatic". This darker side says "Yes fool! How could you believe that NINTENDO could stick with a name so ridiculous as "Wii"? Now swear to me your firstborn and I will raise him as my own!" And the angel on my other shoulder is saying "Please don't kill anyone! How could they know that everyone would hate it?" By a tiny little bit of what we like to call RESEARCH that's how. Holy crap. I don't know if I subscribe to this theory, but I would LIKE to.

Realistically though, I read something where a guy compared this to Winnie the Pooh. Despite all the poo related jokes about Pooh when you hear about Winnie the Pooh it's not like you think of the rocket you built a minute ago. In a similair manner I fully expect Wii to rise above it's name and dominate. It just shouldn't have to.

From a different perspective maybe Nintendo KNEW that Wii would be pretty much hated the way people hate satan, which is why they let us know a week and a half before E3 so that Wii don't rain on their parade. Now we all get a chance to think and stew and grow up past the retarded jokes and start associating the word "Wii" with the word "we" like it should be. Also, IF stereoscopic vision were coming back with the Wii the double 'i's would be a clever sort of hint wouldn't they?

In short, I am officially renaming the Nintendo Wii to "Revowutiion" (pronounced as if you were Elmer Fudd, heh heh heh heh.) It's not quite as silly and doesn't make me want to kill myself.

Number time.

2006-04-22T14:42:00.000-07:00

Really quickly there is a poll up at Joystiq that asks who are you most excited for at E3. As of earlier today this is the result.

Also here are the latest hardware numbers in Japan...

DS Lite: 140,969 (827,737)

DS : 37,204 (767,773)

PS2: 27,549 (504,215)

PSP: 26,340 (609,399)

GBASP: 6,372 (100,814)

GBM: 3676 (62,678)

360: 1,926 (37,287)

GCN: 1,080 (43,649)

GBA: 46 (2,397)

XBX: 30 (1,355)

You can see that Nintendo is still pwning the competition in Japan, by alot. Out.

Interesting Rumor

2006-04-21T16:25:00.000-07:00

There is an interesting rumor floating around the net today, made even more interesting because it is something that never crossed my mind before whereas usually the rumors are things I already thought of or rehashes of older rumors. Here it is: the nunchuck attachment might have its own motion sensors inside so you would be effectively holding two 3D analog sticks, one in each hand.

This has certainly excited many minds on the internet, mine included. Many people think it would be very confusing to, for example, play a game where you hold a sheild with your left hand, a sword with your right, left thumb controls characters real movement, right hand has other buttons to fiddle with. I can assure you that it only sounds complicated, in practice it would be much easier. The reason? You have spent many years working on the coordination of your arms and hands in relation to your body. It would be very simple to control a sword/shield combo in this way. Or boxing, or dual wielding of guns where you can target two different objects. Honestly it sounds very cool to me and any learning curve involved will certainly be smaller than the LEAP from one analog stick to two. In practice this would give a player control of three separate analog controls, two of which would be 3-axis intead of 2, and because you are controling it with your arms instead of your thumbs it will be much easier to learn, I would think it would be very natural, with the analog on the attachment (controlled by your thumb) being the most difficult thing to get the hang of, but then we have been using our thumbs to control video games for years...

There have been quite a few statements that there was another secret about the controller, above and beyond the secret about the console. If this is it then it is no wonder why Nintendo decided to keep this under wraps judging by all the negative feedback out there because people think it will be more complicated than wat we have now. I agree to a degree that games contolled this way may not appeal to the casual gamer so much ( I mean the 3 analog input, the two separate 3D analogs would be way cool for casual gamers because like I said we all know how to move our arms around) but hardcore gamers would eat this up.

I think people are associating these two freestyle analogs with the dual analog that is popular today (or should I say yesterday?) I feel maybe they are associating 'move your left hand to move your character, move your right hand to move the camera' as that is the standard in place today. I think though in an FPS game it would be easy for the game to know where you want to look based on how you are moving your hands, totally eliminating the camera thumbstick because you will be doing it automatically.

I think it would rock! Anyway, you guys tell me what you think. As for me and my house, we will play the Revolution.

How videogames connect to us.

2006-04-16T10:25:00.000-07:00

There have recently been disputes all over the net concerning violence in videogames. Do these videogames affect children negatively? The answer from independant studies and people with more psychology than me say no. They say that children who are more predisposed to violence choose to play more violent games but there is no evidence of a game actually raising the inherent aggression of any person.

This argument has bled over into many smaller contests of opinion regarding not just violence but blood, gore, swearing, nudity/innuendo and rewarding the player character for breaking the law or being amoral. I guess the blanket response here would be "look at the ESRB rating and buy or avoid games based on individual content". More specific analysis follows.

The world of video games is very similar to the world of movies in terms of how a person connects to the media format. The feedback is similar, ie. audio/visual, and the suspension of disbelief is at similar levels for both. A marked difference is the amount of time spent immersed in the media. Two hours versus perhaps twenty hours or more. Games and movies both try and provide storylines to immerse an individual and create a more rewarding experience. Movies learned long ago the shock value of swearing, nudity and gore. These things used to be in movies as a sort of mental gimmick. Shock a customer and they will advertise your movie for you. The world of videogames is a bit behind in exploring some of these areas of visceral feedback. Even though you know you are sitting on your couch, deep in the back of your mind you want to run for your life when you see or hear something scary. An adrenaline rush is a cheap and easy way to bring a person closer to your media, but visceral scares are quickly fading and require at least a hint of danger. Hence playing Doom 3 in the dark is scary until you turn the infinite health cheat on and you don't really care what is lurking beyond the feeble reach of your flashlight.

I recently had a conversation with a good friend about swearing in videogames. I think, in a lot of ways, people don't expect swearing to be in videogames. Therefore, when swearing is present is has a shock value attached to it. In many ways it is the same cheap gimmick of any other visceral feedback. You see or hear something that you weren't expecting and it elicits a response. Even people who swear do not always expect swearing in videogames. The excuse of the developer is that "people swear in real life. I am trying to mimic real life". This is of course completely false. The truth is that they are basing their game on real life, not that it is mimicing real life any more than a movie mimics real life. They want to make videogames more realistic but to do that they need photorealistic graphics and flawless AI routines. Instead of providing these things they go for the cheap trick of 'people swear in real life', instead of 'trees sway in the wind in real life', something that would actually require some programming.

Nudity is not really much different either. Instead of tapping into a natural fight or flight response it has shock value designed to play to other base needs. It sells the beauty and decency of the human body for this shock value and has quickly fading responses until a subject is desensitized. No different from any of the subjects we have been discussing.

The one major difference here is violence. A term so much broader than any of these other cheap parlor tricks. Violence can be anything from Mario jumping and squishing a mushroom guy to a realistic interpretation of shooting and killing human beings or aliens in a great many games. I said there was a big difference and it is this: violence is crucial to the telling of a story whereas gore, nudity, swearing and the like are most definately not. Most every story in movies, games, or books revolves around conflict. The underdog struggling to wrest power from an evil empire. The story has been told a million times in human history. Another popular theme is romance, but a romance story can easily be told without nudity where usurping the evil empire could never be told without violence. Not to mention that romantic stories do not translate well into videogames as it is difficult to give the player character enough options of interaction with other characters. You can't say what you want to say, go where you want to go, or do what you want to do. In an action story the things you do are very simple, you dont need to talk to the bad guy, just blow his kneecaps off. You dont need any other level of interaction other than aiming. And levels can be (and usually are) straightforward and closed-ended. Go from point A to point B, don't let your character die, and take out the enemy.

In short, I fully support violence in videogames, and any other type of media. I do not, however, support the use of gore, nudity or swearing as I do not believe them to be critical to story telling, but rather the cheap tricks that storytellers use to connect to a person when they are too lazy to find a better way. In other words look at the ESRB rating and buy or avoid games based on individual content.

Counterpoint

2006-04-16T09:50:00.000-07:00

I wanted to very quickly counterpoint my last entry with a list of things that I assume will be announced by Microsoft and Sony at E3 2006. Keep in mind that videogame announcements are small potatoes when compared to hardware because a game that is announced at E3 will usually come out more than a year later. Also games that are playable at E3 are never a final build, a rule that Nintendo may break if they are going for an early launch. Undoubtedly they had many games in a playable form last E3 but they were unwilling to show them because they didn't want to let the cat out of the bag so early.

Microsoft:
I list Microsoft first because it comes first in the alphabet. :)
Microsoft will have several big announcements including (I assume) a playable version of Halo 3 which will not be ready until this holiday season when it has the greatest chance to undermine the release of the PS3. I would guess that Microsoft's big showing at E3 this year will be the titles they announced last E3 only in a playable form. Gears of War, a SquareEnix game and I'm sure a few others. Second will be a few titles that will be announced during the press release, games thet will really start to tap into the power of the 360 graphically. They will also announce a price drop of $50 or so on both of their console bundles. Last but not least is the possible announcement of the Xboy or whatever they will call it. Such a device will have to come into direct competition with the PSP with the ability to play movies and music as well as games. I seriously doubt that the press will go ape of this device as it does not fulfill a consumer need anywhere. My opinion of such a device is something I will get into if such an announcement actually takes place.

Sony:
Last in the alphabet.
Sont has a few announcements about their PS3. Namely, what the crap will be in it? When they told us about it last E3 it could play games, every movie ever made, run your whole house full of consumer electronics, cook your dinner, change the baby, and launch a shuttle all at once. This thing was supposed to be packed full of options that such a scant percentage of the population would even be able to take advantage of that it was quite rediculous. They have since retracted and scrapped a few things out of the hardware and one wonders whether it is finalized yet. My guess would be no. The obscene dollar price for the manufacture of the PS3 with many of these options will make it impossible for a lot of people to pay the retail, regardless of how much they want it. Sony need to give us a finalized product and a price tag at E3, esspecially if they want to launch later this year. I expect Sony to wow us with more tech demos but this time maybe these demos will actually run off real hardware. A few of the games announced last E3 will be in a near final playable form but most of the big-ticket games like Killzone and Warhawk will still be in an early stage because of problems programming on Cell and the inability of Sony to finalize their hardware. Sony is entering some dark days my friends. The exclusive agreements they enjoyed 5 years ago have all expired. They are creating a system well outside of a normal consumer price-point. They have made a system that is difficult to program for, and has virtually no development tools. The PSP is still not profitable, not by a stretch. On top of all this they are still getting more and more competition in the consumer electronics department which drops the bottom line of the entire corporation. If you haven't heard, Sony has stopped developing and manufacturing the Aibo and Qrio, basically meaning R+D has taken a major budget cut.

Nintendo:
The middle finger of the gaming alphabet.
We already talked about Nintendo in depth in my last article. I only put this here to contrast the fact that Nintendo will own the show at E3 2006. Undisputed. They calmly took a backseat last E3 while Microsoft and Sony stole each other's thunder and now they have full control of the microphone and the full attention of every media person, unrivaled. Get ready for an insane showing from Nintendo.

A Shadow of Things to Come...

2006-04-15T00:15:00.000-07:00

If you are interested in the Revolution and you are trying to find out exactly what we will find out on May 8th you would have a very difficult time. Reason being that this information is not on the internet, or if it is, not in places that are easy to find. I don't actually have any kind of "real" information here either but I will endeavour to make a list anyway. A list of things that we will learn about the Revolution at E3, extrapolated from announcements from the past year or so, and more than my fair share of common sense.

Lets get the boring stuff out of the way first. We will find out exactly how much it costs at E3. Price is something that consumers should be able to prepare for, emotionally. When you drop a few hundred dollars on a game system you want to know what kind of bang you will get for all those bucks. We all need some time to evaluate the system, its benefits, and its compatability with our personal lifestyles, and weigh these things against the price tag. We are only getting ballpark figures at the moment, which I would say is because there may be expensive elements to this system that we do not yet know about. A high price without revealing the last secret could turn a lot of people off. With what I believe the final secret to be I would guess a price range of near $250, but would gladly pay $300.

We will also find out exactly what colors the console will launch in. Five colors were initially shown at E3 2005, but it is unlikely that all five will be launch colors, or even if those are the only color options at the moment. They were black, white, gray, red, and green. The most popular colors by far were black and white, pulling in about 85% of the poll at IGN months ago. The least popular color was green, but then, black and white go with anything. On the other had, if the recent launch colors of the DS Lite are any kind of precursor then I may be dissappointed myself. The DS Lite launch in white (classy), light blue, and dark blue. Kinda lame as I was really hoping for a black one and considering the glossy exterior of the redesign black should have been a shoe-in. Of course, we have no idea what colors the Lite will launch with in the USA so who knows. My vote for Revolution colors would be black, white, and gray. They are trying to get their image away from "purple box with a handle" and into a classier look. These colors emphasize that. Let the more outgoing people buy skins.

We need to know the official name of the Revolution. Personally I really like the name just how it is but I will still buy it if it is called the "Gen5" or something.

Further we need to know when it will launch. Maybe not a specific date, but we will need to know a launch window. There are two possibilities here. The first is more likely, and it is that the Revolution will launch in November 2006 to take advantage of the holiday season. The second option is less likely but it mixes things up rather well, which seems to be the latest fad at Nintendo. It would be a launch in June-July. The early launch would give Nintendo a big time advantage against Sony, and would be too early for Microsoft to drop their price (something they are waiting to do during the PS3 launch). Also, there would be more time to generate hype bofore the holidays, and get alot of word of mouth advertising going on. The one problem I had with this theory was that they would have less time to get games ready. Last week we heard the announcement of a game called Red Steel, a fps being developed by Ubisoft. Ubisoft has had their hands on a Revolution controller since shortly after last E3. A year is not quite enough time to create a game from scratch, but it is certainly enough time to tweak it to run on the new controller, and now that we know that Ubisoft was in on the secret it makes you wonder who else was. Plus we know that Nintendo will obviously have several launch title which could be ready by June. I would'nt bet the farm on an early launch, but it is possible.

Speaking of launch, we need to know launch titles. George Harrison (Senior VP of marketing NOA) stated that there would be 20 launch titles. Maybe if I have some time I will sit down and try to list them, though it will probably be impossible owing to the fact that some of these titles remain unannounced like Red Steel which nobody knew existed until a week ago. A few likely titles are a new Mario, Metroid Prime 3, Twilight Princess which is technically made for the Gamecube but with the Revolution functionality it will act like a launch title, Red Steel and maybe a new Pilotwings. We also need to know the lauch titles for the virtual console. Don't forget that each of these games needs to be reliscensed in order to appear on the console. I thought a neat idea would be to have a cord that hooks up to your USB in the back and has on the other end, a slot that will fit any actual cartridges that you are still hanging onto seeing as how many titles will never make it back on to the console because of a lack of popularity or legal issues (no Rare games.... Grr.).

A big announcement will be the new intellectual property being created by Miyamoto which is promised to be brand new. I was originally hoping for an fps but with at least two fps games already announced as launch titles a third might be pushing it. I suppose I will just have faith in Shiggy.

There have been several comments on a further secret about the Revolution controller, but I don't believe it is the same as the 'final' secret of the console. I don't really have much of a guess here other than perhaps a built in microphone and headset jack maybe, or plutonium batteries that never die. We will also find out exactly what we get in the package controller wise. There are rumblings that there may be two standard controllers plus a nunchuck attachment in the box. We need to find out also, what the controller shells look like and if they are universal or if there is a seperate one for each retro system.

There is a possibility that the Revolution will ba able to hook up to external USB HDDs. Which would be awesome.

Lastly we need to find out the final secret of the Revolution. You can call me a wacko but I really think it will be stereoscopic vision. Let me rephrase. If Nintendo does not choose this console to bring stereoscopic gaming back to life, it will be a huge missed opportunity. There are only benefits for this move. One, it futher sets Nintendo apart from the competition while making the "you don't work on HDTV" argument completely moot. Second, it provides a more realistic atmosphere for the hardcore gamer, a new and intriguing technology that could bring in many non-gamers and could still output to a standard TV for people who aren't interested in full 3D. I did some checking online and found some VR headset glasses for $90. It says it is like watching a 36" TV from 6 feet away. If Nintendo was mass producing headsets they could bring the price point down to about $50, well worth the experience to most hardcore gamers. Also ATI is making the graphics chip for the Revolution and it is an extension of the Gamecube chip. THe point is it renders in OpenGL which means it understands the 3D world in 3D instead of rendering 2D screenshots and framing them together. It would be easy to output the games rendered by this chip in stereo. The fact is that the technology is there and gaming is inevitably going to move into stereo anyway. Nintendo was already first, they just need to be first again, and do it without complaints this time. Also there have been many comments to the effect of "the Revolution can play virtually any title from over 20 years of great hits" silently glomming the Virtual Boy titles in with them without bringing any attention to it. I could be wrong, but if I am I think Nintendo would be making a bigger mistake than me.

Comments?

And now you know... the rest of the story!

2006-04-08T23:17:00.000-07:00

I ran across a quote on another website and had to put it here as it is supposedly from a person who was in a company that was aquired by Microsoft. You can see some of the concerns that I brought up in the comments section of my last blog. I got the quote from Lost Garden, but was unable to confirm his source myself. Here is the quote.

"Having lived through the Microsoft buyout of a game studio, perhaps I provide some insight into why acquired studios seem to lose their mojo. Disclaimer: This are my opinions only, and come from the individual contributior perspective, not that of the studio management.

First off, Microsoft corporate culture does not map well to a typical successful game studio, and no matter what assurances are given that the studio's culture and operations are going to be left intact, within a couple years the studio becomes fully integrated into the 'Microsoft Way'.

Probably most destructive are the Microsoft one-size fits all HR policies such as stack ranking. Game development is truly a team effort, and successful studios have managed to create teams where most of the performers are above average. Instead of being able to reward people fairly, a pre-determined number of people each year have to be given a "poor" review which includes no compensation increases of any sort, and the warning that if they fail to improve by next year, they will be on the list of people to be 'managed out'. On the other end, a smaller pre-determined number of people will be rewarded handsomly no matter if they have not produced anything to merit such. So a culture of teamwork, focus on the product,and pride in the company will quickly morph into a culture of individual self-promotion, politics and backstabbing, and a disdain for the company.

Additionally, as part of Microsoft, the studio no longer has the urgency to make the next game great and complete it in a timely manner. With Microsoft's billions insuring financial stability if a game is cancelled, and no direct financial upside to producing a hit game, the pressure of living close to the edge that was present in the old culture that helped the team focus is supplanted by a devil may careattitude that creeps into the 'rank and file'. As a result, many of the developers transform from passionate, competitive people who strive for excellence into someone who just 'does their job' and goes home at 6pm sharp. Others just leave for greener pastures. Management gets their large bonuses in any event.There are other issues of course, such as loss of control over future projects, headcount restrictions that prevent a studio from hiring desperately needed people, and so on."-Anonymous Coward

Take it or leave it. Look, I take my hat off to Peter Molyneux. He is, in my opinion, in the top 5 of the most creative and innovative developers in the world. Some day I may write you guys a list, but not today. The point is, I hope that Molyneux and his team can use the financial backing of Microsoft to produce fresh new titles and take the time to polish them properly, instead of heading down the dark road that Rare has gone down. From excellent to ordinary. From perfectionist to lackadaisical. I just hope Lionhead and Molyneux (esspecially) are strong enough to keep their individuality within such a large and protective environment.

So p!$$#d off...

2006-04-06T21:16:00.000-07:00

This is is a dark day my friends. Microsoft has just purchased Lionhead Studios, residence of one of the most creative minds in game development, Peter Molyneux. Some of his titles include Populous, Fable, and the Black and White series. Development was well underway for a Black and White title for the DS, it is unclear at this point whether this game will be released for the DS at this point but my guess would be no.

What makes me so angry is the way Microsoft operates. Instead of coming up with their own ideas they find good ideas and buy them, which unfortunately, is a sound business practice. Well they suck at any rate. Out.

"Happy tree over here..."

2006-04-04T22:41:00.000-07:00

Bob Ross has passed beyond but still he lives on in our hearts, and in our dreams. One of these dreams it turns out will be an upcoming Revolution title where Bob Ross himself will teach anyone with the time how to scrape out mountains and highlight trees. Surprisingly, the response from the gaming community has been overwhelmingly positive since the announcement of the title a few days ago (April 1st as it turns out).
You may wonder why this would warrant an article from me when not a word was written about GDC. Partly because of my busy schedule, partly because I was fairly certain that nothing of import would come forth at GDC, partly because I am excited for this game. Mostly though, this game embodies Nintendo's call to arms. A new and unexplored genre is being created. In fact, this is a title that many would be hesitant to call a 'game' and yet there are many people across a broad range of ages, educations, and vocations of both sexes who are interested in getting their hands on it.
If you look at the history of video games it is readily apparent that there are cycles within cycles. Nintendo's adopted "blue ocean" strategy has an ebb and flow all its own. New genres have always been a part of the industry. A new game will be created that defies standard categorization, if it manages to be successful it will be emulated by other development houses until a genre is defined, a target market is selected, and the game evolves to cater to this certain slice of the gaming community. In this way the game steadily climbs up the ladder from exploratory, to a peak of popularity, and then beyond, becoming more hardcore at each stage. It is a tragic lifecycle of sorts where new gameplay elements are first introduced to refine the genre, and later these forays are implemented out of a neccessity to add spice to the otherwise bland copycats of an outdated original. Unfortunately these changes usually bring an increase in complexity to the point where only the most dedicated players will support the genre at this level. Looking at this problem from intelligent objectivity we can see one problem the industry faces as a whole; steadily losing customers of any specific genre after a peak of only a few years. Feast to famine.
The only solution that works is to create new genres to supplant the venerable ones. There are incredible risks involved in innovation though as one in ten new genres attracts enough attention to be worthwhile of emulation, an essential step in the cycle as only emulation will filter a genre through enough unique minds to produce the key concepts and core gameplay rhetoric needed to create our foundation for a peak. On top of this the costs of creating a new genre are substantially higher when compared to emulation. Thus we see most new videogame related innovation has nothing to do with gameplay but rather improvement on graphics, an easy and low-risk way to set a title apart from it's respective genre. In turn, console manufacturers see this trend of developers and create more powerful machines, capable of an ever increasing quality of graphical output.
Nintendo, however, has found a different solution to this same problem of a market always plunging toward stagnation. Instead of just creating new genres themselves (which they have been incredibly successful at) they are providing the tools to developers which make innovation easier and cheaper, lowering the risks and encouraging new market growth. With an army of creative genius spread across the breadth of the development market new genres will spring up, and because of the unique hardware of systems like the DS and the Revolution, these genres will be exclusive to Nintendo as they are explored, refined and perhaps peak five years from now while the genres of today have lost much of their following.
Who knows, maybe Bob Ross: Third Edition will be raking it in by then. I know I will do my part when the title hits shelves. Maybe we all will. For Bob.

Long overdue.

2006-02-08T23:28:00.000-08:00

Over the past few days there have been some interviews with Nintendo fat-cats which, while not giving too much new info, still reinforce their position adequately in terms of overall marketing strategy. The one I would really like to hit on (no pun intended) is the lovely Perrin Kaplan, VP of marketing and corporate affairs. Her interview with Forbes brings to focus the key Nintendo strategy that I have been trying to expound on, though she is much more succinct. Her quotations will be in blue, Forbes' in red, and my remarks will remain... normal.

Why did consumers spend fewer entertainment dollars this past year, and what is Nintendo doing to stave off the softness in game sales seen by your competitors?

This past year we saw consumers get savvy--they want to experience new innovative software. We have seen this challenge grow over the past year as the console market has seen some decline. The industry library shows a plethora of the same type of games--and while many of them are popular, all good things run dry after a while. While some spending may have gone outside of games this year, if companies make appealing games, that won't be a problem. Nintendo started out more than 100 years ago as a company that made Japanese playing cards called hanafuda. You could say that was our first software, and it is proof that we've always been about the games. Games are really No. 1 for us. Of course, some game titles go across all three main platforms, but we make a good portion of our own games.

This is a bigger deal than Forbes really lets on here. Microsoft lost over a billion dollars PER YEAR throughout the life of the Xbox. Electronic Arts, one of the biggest and long-lived 3rd party developers just announced a 31% earnings decrease from last year and is predicting to be down further this year. Sony made nominal profit ratios during the life-cycle of the PS2 and is losing money on the PSP. Typically, the amount of money spent on the videogame industry climbs each year. If this is the case why such horrible numbers? The reason is that rising game development costs offset these gains, meaning that fewer people are taking larger slices of pie.

What makes Nintendo's corporate culture and tactics different from its competitors?

Inside Nintendo, we call our strategy "Blue Ocean." This is in contrast to a "Red Ocean." Seeing a Blue Ocean is the notion of creating a market where there initially was none--going out where nobody has yet gone. Red Ocean is what our competitors do--heated competition where sales are finite and the product is fairly predictable. We're making games that are expanding our base of consumers in Japan and America. Yes, those who've always played games are still playing, but we've got people who've never played to start loving it with titles like Nintendogs, Animal Crossing and Brain Games. These games are Blue Ocean in action.

In contrast to the sobering fiscal numbers I just threw at you consider Nintendo, up 260% for the November-December period, compared to last year. Certainly this is the result of a really great month but consider also that for the last 9 months their profits are up 36% from last year's same nine month period. Bill Gates referred to Nintendo as being the most profitable gaming company, yet we see here a profound increase in their already high profit margins. This has much to do with what Kaplan refered to as the "Blue Ocean" strategy. If you didn't make the connection "Red Ocean" refers to an ocean full of blood. An ocean only has blood in it if someone is bleeding/dying. This is the strategy Sony and Microsoft have adopted, a strategy where they are fighting over your dollars and basically catering to the same people. Nintendo has a "Blue Ocean" strategy, that is, if you are the only fish in the sea you don't have to fight over food. Nintendo is creating a new market that expands off the old one. They pull in existing gamers and give them an innovative, new experience which drives the industry to new places. Assuming the new controller works well for example, Nintendo's competitors will be forced to play catch up yet again, adopting a free-hand control style of their own while Nintendo has the benefit of having 2nd generation technology having already worked so extensively with the tech. When the market starts to heat up again Nintendo will move on and create something new. Something we didn't expect. Something that prompts developers to create not just new games, but new types of games. This, in turn, will prompt gamers to flock to these games. Afterall, who doesn't want to try out something new?

So what aspects of the new Revolution are "Blue Ocean" and will create a new market?

Well, first there's this new controller. It is out of this world, literally! You can now move your hand, arm, wrist or body to control the game. If you were playing a fishing game, before you would just press buttons on a controller held in both hands in front of you. With this, you can move your arm back and forth and cast your bait. It senses depth. As sdoesn'te who doesn't spend hours per day gaming, I was thrilled with the experience. We're also offering what we call the "virtual console"--the ability to download nearly every kind of Nintendo game going back to the original Nintendo Entertainment System through the GameCube. We think there is an untapped nostalgia market: Gamers who grew up and cut their teeth on these older games could come back.

The guy who runs the Xbox Live Arcade said he didn't think that the older Nintendo games would "hold up". He cited many reasons why he believes that XBLA will be a much better service than anything Nintendo can offer. If he is right, I wonder why emulators for Nintendo games are so much more popular than anything else, even after all these years? (Don't pirate games ppl) Also, in light of Nintendo's outspoken benevolence for 'indie' developers it is foolhardy to think that Nintendo won't sport downloadable games made specifically for the Revolution like the much touted Geometry Wars for Live Arcade (I have played it btw, and it is a blast). The biggest reason for backwards compatibility though is not for the meager pittance they will make on reissued software, but rather to get older gamers who have STOPPED playing to pick up a system for nostalgic reasons and THEN they will buy new software and optimally Nintendo will have garnered another loyalist.

How does the Revolution compare with other Nintendo products that have changed game-industry design standards?

We've launched product designs that our competitors adopt, such as the first directional pad, or wireless controllers or controllers with tactile feedback. One of the reasons we're not giving a lot of details about the design of the new console prior to its release is that there's no way we're going to let that happen again.

Interesting run-around Kaplan gives us here. Obviously Nintendo wouldn't want their competitors to steal their ideas before they are firmly ensconced in their market. We know about the controller already. What design details are we still not privy to so that Nintendo will get the jump on it's competitors? I have my hunches, and my own reasons for hoping they are true and I will blog about this subject soon. Suffice it to say, everyone who is anyone at Nintendo has adopted the mantra "you don't know everything yet." Why shouldn't Nintendo keep the best for last?

All signs point to an aging gamer demographic--at least in the U.S. Isn't Nintendo ceding too much ground to Sony and Microsoft by not offering certain edgy, first-person-shooter (FPS) titles?

If you take a look at our library, you will find games in each genre, including FPS. That's not the core of what we want to develop, but we do offer them. You could argue we have the widest array of games of all the hardware companies.

This is a key point that Forbes brings up. The American market is bursting at the seams with first person shooters. Like platformers, and real-time strategy games, FPS games are on the downward swing of the genre lifecycle. First a genre is created, then it becomes popular to the point that more developers want in on the action. Subsequent games will first ape the genre king and then explore new gameplay aspects in an attempt to breathe life into the genre. In the end, the competition dies down with a half dozen games representing the genre, each basically in the mainstream that the evolution of the genre has dictated. Here though we have a unique opportunity to see what happens to two dying genres, RTS and FPS, when they are reintroduced with a control style that enhances gameplay with an ability to more fluidly and intuitively control the action. If Nintendo can prove that their new controller can achieve this then they will pull hardcore gamers away from the competition in at least these two genres.

Does the "virtual console" effort represent Nintendo's entire online strategy?

No. More will be described soon. We will use the Wi-Fi component in a different way for each game, just like with the DS.

Really stupid question considering that the DS also has Wi-Fi and as yet, has not been announced to have any virtual console features. Nintendo just patented a speech-to-text setup that interfaces with a server. Imagine for instance a game where you talk, the speech is translated into words on a server which breaks down what you are saying and feeds that information into a translation program to turn it into Japanese which is printed on the screen of someone who doesn't speak English and all of a sudden you can talk to Kamikaze_187 in Tokyo. A subtle but effective online feature that could run in the background and as it is being streamed to a server and the server is doing to work it represents little drag on your home machine.

Though the new console won't include a high-definition disc player, how does the impending format war between Sony and Microsoft affect Nintendo?

For us, it's all about the experience, not if the technology allows you to play your game on the high-definition formats, which are now in such a small percentage of homes. Many independent sources tell us that experiencing current high-def games on a regular TV makes it near impossible to see everything clearly. That means the majority of homes are experiencing something lesser than what they bargained for.

I couldn't agree with Kaplan more here. I don't know everything about this stuff, but Perfect Dark Zero looked like crap compared to Halo 2. Call of Duty looked about the same but with better bump mapping and volumetric smoke effects. Nothing has wowed me so far with the graphics on the 360. I keep hearing that a game tweaked to run in standard definition will look better on a regular TV than that same game tweaked for HD and running with standard texture maps. I'm not sure why this happens but I am told there are artifacts quite often. Still, this is a nearly moot point. HDTVs are only in 15% of homes RIGHT NOW. The typical hardcore gamer that Microsoft and Sony are going after with their products is male and in their teens and early twentys. Do you really think that this demographic will lay down a few grand for an HDTV so they can enjoy their graphics a bit more? I seriously doubt it.

Anyway, this was a great interview by Kaplan and I admire her brevity. Till next time.

Some (more) stats

2006-02-02T15:59:00.000-08:00

Sorry for the lack of real updates, I am very busy at the moment getting ready for my big test. When I posted stats for the DS earlier some people brushed it off as being "just Japan". Now let me get one thing absolutely straight, gaming is HUGE in Japan and the Japanese gaming market is like twice that of all the rest combined or something (I don't have exact numbers there). Hence, saying that Nintendo is rocking in Japan is quite telling in terms of how profitable Nintendo has been lately. Because the market is so much greater in Japan they publish sales statistics weekly whereas I'm not quite sure when America and Europe publish theirs, though I think it is quarterly. Anyhow, here are sales figures for the European market, followed by a Japanese poll.

United Kingdom:
DS 1,000,000
PSP 795, 000

France:
DS 750,000
PSP 500,000

Germany:
DS 520,000
PSP 350,000

Spain:
DS 425,000
PSP 295,000

Other Regions:
DS 1,005,000
PSP 500,000

These are total figures sold, not monthly or quarterly (I'm pretty sure).

Here is the results of a poll done by Famitsu, the most popular gaming magazine in Japan. They polled 113 retailers, 47 developers, and 370 gamers about what they see in the future of video games.

Most anticipated gaming machine of 2006

1. PS3 - 53.7% of the developers, 56.9% of the retailers, 46.3% of the gamers
2. Revolution - 41.4% of the developers, 43.9% of retailers, 45.8% of the gamers
3.Xbox360 - 2.4% of the developers, 1.7% of the retailers, 7.9% of the gamers

Then they asked what system would be king in 2006.

Number 1 gaming machine of 2006 (DeveloperÂs pick)
1. Nintendo DS - 49.9%
2. PS3 - 16.7%
3. Revolution - 10.0%
4. PSP - 5.0%
5. Xbox 360 - 1.7%

Number 1 gaming machine of 2006 (RetailerÂs pick)
1. Nintendo DS - 38.3%
2. PS3 - 31.5%
3. Revolution - 12.3%
4. (TIE) PSP/Xbox 360 - 1.7%

Number 1 gaming machine of 2006 (Gamer's pick)
1. PS3 - 40.3%
2. Nintendo DS - 32.6%
3. PS2 - 11.8%
4. Revolution - 11.5%
5. Xbox 360 - 2.5%
6. PSP - 0.3%

These last numbers show what machine each pollee THOUGHT would be most successful nonecessarilyly what they personally would purchase. It is interesting the note the big difference between the tiny gap between the PS3 and Revolution in terms of what was mostly anticipated and the relatively large gap between the two when they tried to predict what system would be supreme. Personally attributete this difference to the media spin making the PS3 look awesome compared to the usually poor marketing of Nintendo, so it appears to most people that the PS3 will win in a landslide again whereas the numbers of what system gamers wanted themselves was much different. What do you think?

A video that every Nintendite should see.

2006-01-27T23:51:00.000-08:00

If you like Nintendo then you should pop over and watch this video. It is great.

Nintendo: Oldschool Revolution

Also, if anyone knows where I can download this from, let me know.

Here is another one. I don't know if this is official or fanmade, but it is hilarious.

Nintendo Micro testing

Why (re)design?

2006-01-27T22:21:00.000-08:00

There is a wonderful question posed by the redesign of the Nintendo DS that obviously was well under way before the system hit it's first birthday. The question is WHY re-design? We all know that the lifecycle of a console averages 5 years. The lifecycle of a handheld though has been significantly longer, at least until recently. The reason for this probably has more to do with Nintendo holding virtually all the market share than with any other explanation I could come up with. First if you haven't seen a side-by-side comparison...

Oops... That's a DIFFERENT side-by-side comparison, here is the shot of the DS.

As you can see the case is quite a bit smaller, though from what I read the screen is the same size. The question though is why? There are many consequences to a redesign like this and not all of them are good. You will see though that the good far outweighs the bad. First, the good. You may or may not know that the Xbox went through eight or so iterations, though the outside shell never changed, the chips and hardware inside certainly did. The same is true of the ps2 and the Gamecube but because they aren't big in the modding world they aren't opened as much so we don't care as much about changes done to the insides. The truth is that console manufacturers are always finding cheaper components and it can save alot of money to change one little chip. This is the biggest reason, though not the only one that makes sense to your wallet. The redesign of the DS, as well as the GBA and the ps2 all revitalizes sales. When a new console comes out, the hardcore players will purchase it. These same hardcore players will probably purchase the redesign as well, Nintendo has just sold two systems. Less hardcore gamers come along as well obviously and will purchase a system based on many different things. How many times have you wished that your DS was as sexy as a PSP? I mean, the DS is beating the crap out of Sony. Now, imagine this redesign in the same black color of the revolution and it is easily able to compete with the PSP in terms of image.

You can see the DS logo on the closed cover, I assume it is etched on the inside so as to make a smooth polish finish on the outside. You have to agree that people who held off because of the clunkiness of the original DS .

I mean the clunkiness of the one that was ISSUED.

But seriously I wanted to post that original picture because it is interesting to note just how closely the redesign resembles the original model shown at E3 2004. The miracle of a new, shiny case I suppose.

The question is, will this thing sell. The answer is "like hotcakes". There will be a few people who just bought a DS in the last couple of months who will feel like they wasted some money. Do you think that people will start waiting on Nintendo before they by their products? I don't think so, not in any kind of widespread way. I bet there are a lot of PSP fanboys that are saying "they copied from the PSP!!" Which is why I showed the pic of the original at E3 two years ago, with a nearly identical shape, and even if Nintendo did grab the idea of "shiny glossy case" I think it is about time that what went around, came around, if you know what I mean.

A little bit of (relevant) news

2006-01-23T22:30:00.000-08:00

There is a lot of buzz in the Revolution rumor area, and whether any of it is true or not doesn't really matter at this point. If you want to see some documented news that I found truely exciting (but still doesn't mean much at this point) then head over to Joystiq for their latest poll numbers showing that the upcoming Revolution is the most wanted system for single and multiple system owners. Out of 7,721 total Joystiq reader votes, Nintendo garnered a whopping 84.21% which is incredible considering that Joystiq is not a Nintendo site, they deal with all systems and news. Here is the picture from their site followed by their quotation.

Total percentages:

Nintendo Revolution: 6502 votes - 84.21%

Sony PlayStation 3: 3738 votes - 48.41%

Microsoft Xbox 360: 3575 votes - 46.30%

Market share:

Nintendo Revolution: 47.06%

Sony PlayStation 3: 27.06%

Microsoft Xbox 360: 25.88%

Who loses next generation?

2006-01-18T16:01:00.000-08:00

I just opened this site and so I thought I should make a new post. It has been a couple weeks since my last because I have been very busy studying the securities industry for my big test.

There are many dynamics that create the videogame industry. It is easy to look back and see what specific things turned out affecting past generations. Using some of these principals it becomes possible to TRY and predict what the future could hold.

If we look at the dynamics of the Playstation brand we can see what contributed the greatest to it's success. Or, rather, we can look at what started the ball rolling. Obviously great games and good marketing came into play as well. The PS1 was developed as an add-on to the SNES about halfway through the life-cycle of the SNES. The whole deal went very sour and it provided Sony with a great opportunity to put some finishing touches on an existing hardware unit and, most importantly, it let them release a system halfway through an existing generation, allowing them to have better technology and hardware than the competition. On top of this, many game developers were eager to develop software on a medium where they didn't have to worry about cartridge chipsets and the complications with programming on them. This resulted in a platform with many games and hardware with much stamina compared to the competition. When the N64 was released, the developers were content to stay with Sony as it was a sytem they were used to and because Nintendo stuck with cartridges (a choice that benefited gamers but not developers. You remember at the time the PS1 had like a 4x CD-ROM and loading times were painfully slow).

The PS2 was the king of this latest generation. Not in quality of games but certainly in terms of hardware sales, which of course pushes software sales regardless of their quality. This is not to say that there weren't many great games on the PS2, only that they were a somewhat smaller part of the dynamic that created such a huge success for Sony. The PS2 came to market about a year before the competition, giving them a huge advantage in terms of real time. I will go into this in greater detail later when I talk about the 360 because Micro$oft has the time advantage this upcoming console generation. A second huge advantage it had was being the first home-console with backwards compatability, providing not just a new console, but a replacement with a huge library. It makes sense that they would hold on to many of their base as they already had games that would run on it and they didn't have to wait for "their" system because it came first to market. I think this has translated into a false sense of security for Sony.

The strategy for this upcoming generation is not set. All the pieces have not been revealed yet. So it is impossible to try and predict everything. Having said that, there are a few facts that we know.

#1. Sony will not be first to market this console generation. Obviously the 360 has taken this award already. Looking at gamers in general you see a large base of young men, a class of society not well known for their patience. How many PS2 owners will have a 360 instead of a PS3 simply because they couldn't wait another year for the competition? I would be willing to bet on a lot, in America at least. Sales in Japan are very bad for the 360 making me wonder why they didn't release those consoles in the states instead.

#2. Sony will not have the only backwards compatible system. Micro$oft did what they could to bring backwards compatibility to the 360. Its not perfect, but it works well enough and with enough titles to get the job done for mostly everyone. Nintendo is pulling out all the stops and making the Live Arcade feature of the 360 look like a cheap knock-off with their virtual console. Granted, it is hard to say for SURE because we haven't seen it, but the concept is undeniably much better than Live Arcade. I have also heard that Nintendo is having talks with Sega to possibly bring Genesis titles onto the virtual console. On top of this there are rumors floating around of being able to interchange graphics on older games or maybe purchasing a visually and audibly upgraded version of older titles. I don't put much stock in rumors but I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be true. Still, the fact remains that Sony cannot market the PS3 by touting backwards compatibility.

#3. The PS3 will not come to market halfway through the generation. This helped the PS1 to have superior hardware at a reasonable price. The PS3 will have cutting edge technology, but it will cost the consumer alot of money. Speculation puts the price at around five or six-hundred dollars. Sony hasn't said anything so the price could be higher or lower, but if it is lower Sony will have to pay out the difference from their own pocket and if it is higher it will prevent many consumers from buying one. Either position hurts Sony quite a bit.

#4. Developers will not pick Sony based solely on media format. All three media formats are comparable in terms of ease to the developer with just a couple points. The HD visuals of the 360 require more disk space, especially since they are doubling everything to run on standard definition. Some developers are having problems fitting it all on a single disc. Nintendo will be using discs pretty much the same size as Micro$oft but without HD content it means they have more space freed up.

Those are what I can pick out as being the facts. Each of them eliminates a former advantage of Sony. Obviously in order for them to keep their market share they need to give us something new. Something that the consumer and developer can each weigh and decide if they want to keep following Sony. I think the 360 coming out a year earlier really hurts the Sony marketshare in the U.S. How many people will hold out for a name brand? More will wait just for a specific game, but how many games on the 360 will already be out? Certainly there are many more aspects to this dynamic that we need to explore. Unfortunately we have to guess on the rest of these aspects, as we don't have evidence of a reaction. We know what will go INTO the equation, we don't know what it will produce.

#1. Sony has said they will not have a centralized online community. With Xbox Live being so popular and Nintendo introducing their own online solution it is a wonder that Sony hasn't come up with an answer to this problem. With online gaming becoming ever more popular I am sure they will eventually implement a system, but how long until they decide to?

#2. Sony is losing developers. It is hard to tell how long this will go on, or to what extent but more and more developers are going 3rd party to cut down on their development cost ratios. They already have a viable software product, why not market it across platforms? Many exclusive Sony developers are cutting their ties. Also, never forget that developers are real people, just as excited to make new games with better graphics with which to express themselves. How many games will come out on the 360 because developers didn't want to wait for the PS3? When a game takes on average 2 years to make, a year makes a huge difference.

#3. Nintendo is very popular in Japan. Sony's largest base is in Japan. If the Revolution turns out to be a more enticing/exciting/cheaper system it only makes sense that many people who owned a PS2 would rather own a Revolution, especially considering the backwards compatability of the latter. How much market share do you think Sony might lose to Nintendo in Japan? Of course this same point applies in the states.

#4. Halo 3. Look, Halo is not, in my opinion, the best FPS game ever made. It is a solid title with many great features and it certainly is ONE of the best FPS games. But hands down, it is the BEST multiplayer FPS. This coupled with Xbox Live make Halo a killer app for 360 (assuming it doesn't suck. Bungie has a pretty good track record though.) I keep hearing that Halo 3 will hit stores when the PS3 does. There is a hardware push associated with the release of any AAA title and Micro$oft will definately sweep up some potential PS3 buyers at this time.

#5. Nintendo is a great big wildcard. Speculation runs rampant from 3D visors to displacement mapping, to Nintendo diapers so you don't have to get up and pee during your game. I don't pretend to know and would be hesitant to make a guess on what their remaining secrets will be but looking at their history and from a purely sensical standpoint the secrets they are holding on to will be the biggest and best. Assuming this is the case, Nintendo could sweep up market share in a big way. Where do you think those consumer will come from? Nintendo says they want to increase the market by selling to the non-gamer, but those sales will creep in slowly. It is the existing gaming community that will immediately test, judge, and buy/reject the Revolution as a concept. Considering some of the announced launch titles for the Revolution it is safe to say that everyone will have a chance to play an incredible game using the new controller.

I said earlier that Sony needs to offer something new to keep their market share, and they ARE. I don't think though, that some of these offers are going to be what consumers will latch onto.

#1. HD. Obviously Sony has some big competition in this market in the form of a big white box, with a HUGE black power converter. Also, as I stated in an earlier blog HD-TV penetration is at about 15% in the states right now. How many consumers will want to shell out extra money for HD they can't personally take advantage of? On the flip side Sony will be the only one to offer a system with built-in capability to play HD movies in the form of...

#2. Blu-Ray. Sony is putting a lot of effort into pushing this new media format. It might succeed but if it doesn't Sony would be odd man out in the movie world. And miking lasers that are capable of Blu-ray and standard DVD is much more expensive.

#3. Complicated hardware architecture. More and more you hear developers speaking against the PS3. With multi-threading being so new there are no development tools to help developers meaning that games that take advantage of this technology will take longer to make and be more expensive, both to the developer and the consumer. The PS3 cell processor is the equivalent of an eight core processor, exponentially complicating multi-thread programming. The director of the FFVII tech demo at E305' stated it would take 300 people 5 years to remake the game at that level. How many games do you think will take full advantage of the PS3 hardware? How many consumers want a product that may never reach its potential before it is obsolete hardware?

#4. Cutting-edge features. Did you know the PS3 will be able to refresh at 120 frames a second? Did you know there is not a TV on the market, HD or otherwise that refreshes at 120hz? How many features in the PS3 will the average consumer ever need? You can hook it up to 2 HD-TV? You can have 7 people play off one system? There are two video cards in the PS3. These cards aren't even out on the consumer market yet, but they will hit at $600 a pop. How much money will it cost Sony to manufacture each PS3? How much of that will be passed on to the consumer?

On top of these things the PSP is a wasting product for Sony, meaning it costs them more to manufacture than they charge the consumer. And certainly the PS3 will be a wasting product, though we can't know at this point to what extent. How much money can Sony lose on this multimedia front?

I don't think that Sony will exit stage like Sega. Not yet. But these factors will all contribute in their own way to change the market share between console manufacturers in the upcoming generation.

Rivulet aka Benjdude

A Little Note

2006-01-18T13:13:00.000-08:00

Just as a note these preceeding posts were written on and before the 2nd of January.

A Slight Deviance

2006-01-18T13:11:00.000-08:00

Well I was going to write a bit more about the DS but I will leave that beauty for later. The reason is that in the last week I have had three of my theories substantiated to a degree. They remain, of course, theory. Two I haven't mentioned here yet but one I have. I wanted to quickly draw attention to them not just because it gives me an ego boost, but also because I feel that they are important and interesting.
The first is about the market penetration of the HDTV. I ran across data on Nintendo.about.com "According to a report by Kagan Research on the penetration rate of HDTV sets, only around 10% of households had televisions capable of displaying high definition images at the beginning of 2005. By the end of the decade, Leichtman Research Group puts that number at 55%." He goes on to say that two other groups put up their own numbers. "Kagan Research LLC, however, put that number at about 82%, citing a much steeper increase as average HD-TV prices drop to around $1000. A third company, JupiterResearch, predicts that 63% of homes will have HD capable TVs by the turn of the decade." Still, averaging these three numbers out give us a solid 66.66%. A clear majority, but that is by the end of the decade, at the end of the lifecycle of the Revolution, 360 and PS3. As I said on my blog, the penetration at the END of the decade, in the next generation would be a much cheaper and better time to implement HD graphics in video games.
The second was a thought I had when I found out about the new controller and also heard that Twilight Princess was to be delayed and I thought that the delay might very well be to incorporate the use of the new controller functions into the Zelda title adding replay to the title and also giving the Revolution a killer app because if you haven't bought a Gamecube yet, Twilight Princess probably won't sell you, but it might entice you to purchase a Revolution in the beginning of it's cycle. Especially if the new implementations are solid changes. Its not hard to find this rumor if you Google it. The interesting extrapolation is the fact that the biggest hardware push with a new game title is only a matter of weeks. If they want to take advantage of the hype surrounding Twilight Princess to sell Revolution hardware they might be planning a near-simultaneous launch, which would make sense don't you think?
The third is much more vague, but stands to be the coolest of the three. It revolves around a technology called "displacement mapping". If rumors are to be believed, the Revolution will have dedicated hardware to perform displacement mapping, which is a method of splitting polygon models to make them more detailed. When the virtual console feature of the Revolution was announced I thought how cool it would be to enhance the graphics of older games to run better on the Revolution. Obviously the SNES would not benefit from this, leaving the NES and especially the N64. The resolution of the N64 games can easily be changed but to change textures or models would probably require a game specific patch. If displacement mapping can remake the models on the fly then it would breathe new life into games that have been gathering dust for a long time.
Now onto a few predictions just to have them on the record for if they too are substantiated. First, it has been suggested that each game for the virtual console will need to be re-released, meaning that not all desired content will be available to each person. A tiny hardware unit consisting basically of a cartridge slot and a wire interfacing with the Revolution would hook up to a cartridge that you own and allow you to emulate it on the Revolution. Of course there would be a separate one for each cartridge form factor. In terms of hardware I can't imagine these selling for more than $10, making them a viable consumer option.
Also, clues have been coming together slowly concerning a much bigger Revolution picture that I'm not entirely sure what to make of. When the Revolution was announced I was wondering, like many, what the revolutionary aspects of the console would be. While people were focusing on the controller I was thinking about the Virtual Boy and how it is nearly time to implement true 3D perspective gaming which I believe is a gaming leap that is inevitable. I wondered at the time if this might not be what Nintendo is up to. A few statements fueled my theory. Statements about new ways to visualize a game, and a patent filed by Nintendo, but I didn't want to get my hopes up too much. Then the revolution controller was actually shown and instead of putting down my theory it helped to fan the fire. For the first time in video game history we will have a controller that can access all three axis at once, and in an intuitive way. If you wanted to have stereo vision don't you think you would want a controller that could interface with a Z axis? Well, here you go. Some subsequent statements have also bolstered my idea such as numerous statements that we don't know everything about it yet and just a couple days ago, Iwata-san was asked for a price point for the Revolution and said it would not be priced above "$399". Doesn't it strike you as odd that a system like the Revolution, priced down by avoiding HD could sell for that high? Many developers who have precursor development systems say that a pricepoint as low as $100-150 would be probable. Why the huge gap? Only two explanations present themselves. Either Nintendo doesn't have a price established and they don't want to be held to anything they might have said, causing Iwata to quote a high price or else there is something more to the Revolution that we don't know yet. I am sure I will touch on this eventually as more details add to my theory. For now, just try to imagine if Nintendo gave you true 3D, so that not only was there a new way to PLAY your games, but also a new way to SEE them. That, my friends, is a Revolution.

Handheld Bonanza

2006-01-18T13:10:00.000-08:00

The Nintendo DS. Where do I even begin with a product like this? First let me state that I think this may be Nintendo's MOST innovative product to date, followed by the Virtual Boy (true stereoscopic vision which was so far ahead of its time that the technology could not support it) and the Nintendo 64 (the innovation in the 64 was myriad being the first console system to even suggest upgradable memory. The graphics and sound cards laid the foundation for the Gamecube and Revolutions own chipsets using advanced firmware in both which has allowed the Gamecube to look and sound incredible while keeping game software more compact. The real innovation here though lies in its controller. Before the 64, shoulder buttons werent aligned in the now standard trigger angle, the z button changed that. A standardanalog stick was an addition that changed console gaming with such resolution that Nintendos competition think the analog stick cannot be replaced or enhanced. We will see. On top of these the c-button configuration could be said to be the precursor to the dual analog and was utilized in FPS games in exactly the same way.) Nintendo has always had the market strategy to sidestep direct competition with innovation.
Let me give you a great example of this concept. There is a game on the market called Guitar Hero. This game sells with a 3/4 size, plastic guitar. The guitar has buttons on it that let you sort of mimic chords and some buttons that let you sort of mimic plucking. The developer and publisher both made a substantial gamble in terms of time and money for this game. The game runs $70. $110 if you want 2 controllers. Unless a sequel is made the controller will never be used for anything else. The manufacturing cost for a brand-new controller form will need to be recouped AS WELL as the development costs for the software. Most designers and publishers are not willing to take this kind of risk. Now take a look at the payoff. Anyone who thinks playing a guitar game would be something they should do has only one game to choose from. This would probably include people who play the guitar as well as people who dont. On top of this even though the costs for the controller were very high, the cost for software development on a game of this kind are very low and with existing game mechanics a sequel could be brought together in a matter of 6 months which could be a decision regardless of if the first game sells well. If it flys off the shelves a sequel will increase profit margin and genre proliferation. In contrast if the first game doesn't sell well a sequel can be made for a fraction of the already cheap development cost of the original and sold without a controller earning profit through marketing mainly to consumers who bought the first game. The same example can be made for the Nintendo bongo controller, with two main differences. #1 Nintendo can produce a new, high-quality controller form-factor for much cheaper and #2 because this product was released by Nintendo proliferation can be expected to be much higher so we see 3rd party developers creating games that make use of the controller such as Odama which is a quirky pinball type game. Where the guitar controller will never be used for any other type of game the bongos have been used for music games (2 I think), a platformer (which is awesome and very shattering to the game development world to have created such a solid platforming title with no d-pad, no analog and only 2 buttons. The title is actually operated with only 5 commands, tapping right and left to have your character run that way, slapping both to have him jump, alternating back and forth to have him hit things and clapping to interact with other characters and objects.) and the pinball game coming out in the spring (I think).
In contrast to both of these games and their unique software titles it needs to be noted that creating an entirely new handheld or console can increase profit margin dramatically as in the case of the DS. The reason why is simple, while a developer making a game that uses the bongos is mainly marketing to consumers who already have the special controller and developer for the DS has a market where EVERYONE has a touch screen, microphone, and wireless funtionability. We would say that market saturation for these new control forms is 100%. Therefore creating an innovative title to take advantage of these new control abilities is MUCH less risky and is not attached to high manufacturing costs of creating new controller forms.
Now on to specific market arrangement. Nintendo created to DS to do two things. First to provide new tools to developers in order to create new genres and continue the gaming lifecycle which I will blog about later. Secondly they hope to create a new market. They said several times that the DS represented a third Nintendo product and was NOT a succesor to the Gameboy Advance. If we take a closer look at the Sony PSP we can easily see why Sony could stand to lose quite a bit of money on it. First though, I want to talk about some of the things that are really working in the favor of the PSP. The best marketing move on Sony's part here is definately the choice to go with UMDs. While I think that UMDs are a detriment to the handheld on the consumer side they are a real strength from Sony's perspective because they are cheaper to manufacture than cartridges and because the storage capacity allows Sony to market movies from Sony pictures providing yet another market for their movie lineup. Reasons why UMDs are bad for consumers would be the frailty of any optical disk in comparison to a cartridge and the marked battery difference giving less than 3 hours playtime if the disk is constantly spinning (as in watching a movie) which will drop to about an hour after a couple hundred recharges which could easily represent a year in the case of some hardcore gamers. Another huge benefit in favor of the PSP is the power of the unit. I would say to anybody that gameplay should always have more consideration than graphical power but at the same time there is no denying that if you could get the same game with better graphics you arent going to choose the worse looking version. Of course the consumer will pay a different price for a better looking product even though functionally it might be identical. The pricepoint for most PSP game is $40 while the price point for most DS games is $30. This is purely the difference in development costs because as has already been stated UMDs are much cheaper to manufacture than cartridges. As I said in my last blog, this price difference in games will be a major advantage of the Revolution over the PS3 and 360 where I think the price difference could be $20 or more. How hardcore are you REALLY?
Now on to why the PSP could face some major trouble. Firstly we need to take a look at the competition. Nintendo is the obvious competition and though I am not privvy to profit margins I would be willing to bet that Nintendo has a wider profit margin on a cheaper system than Sony does because that is how their prevailing history. This is a viable concern as it means that Sony may or may not make any money on its PSP lineup whilst competing against a corporation that is definately making money on its products. Not so obvious are the other huge competitors to Sony's device. When Sony decided to incorporate movies and music capability they put themselves in direct competition with quality MP3 players like the I-pod. In an earlier blog I talked about why videogame consoles don't drop in price as much as other electronics and here is another wonderful advantage. Apple can release a newer version of their I-pod and start selling their older versions as a lower price, eventually creating a media product that does what the PSP does for half the cost to the consumer. In contrast the PSP will almost definately never sell below $150 and it will be a couple more years before that price point can even be reached. Another big issue for Sony is the multi-fuctionality of the PSP. Multi-functionality does not typically drive sales up and in the case of the PSP this is definately true. In order for the PSP to remain competitive they have to have a lineup that incorporates games AND movies now, whereas Nintendo only needs to worry about games. Looking at this past year you can see a steady decline in games released for the PSP and this is part of the reason why. Now you have gamers disappointed with a product. If there were less movies available then you would have media buffs upset. Sony has put themselves in a position that is dificult to maintain competitively.
The comparison between the PSP and the DS is so important to Nintendo's strategy that I had to talk about it. Now on to some of the specifics of the DS and perhaps more importantly with the Revolution looming on the horizon, some idiosyncracies with the announcement and release of the DS. But first, have a Merry Christmas.

What is Maturity?

2006-01-18T13:08:00.000-08:00

This is the second part of my last blog, and it is a very important subject. Afterall, software sales must drive the hardware sales. If games are undesirable the system by definition is itself undesirable. But before I continue I would like to state some facts that I didn't have time to put into part 1.
It is something that is very important to realize when you are considering Nintendo's upcoming hardware. When the original NES hit the market it was the most powerful console ever made. The SNES was more powerful than the Genesis in every way except the CPU. The N64 was much more powerful than the PS1 and the Gamecube falls between the Xbox and the PS2, leaning heavily toward the Xbox. The point here is that Nintendo has always had this same strategy of value and all of its systems have performed beautifully. The only possible exception being the N64 which was its most powerful system in relation to competition. Kinda funny no?
Now let me explain to you why most games on the Gamecube look as good as MOST of the games on the Xbox. The answer is simple. Most Xbox games are cross-platform titles meaning developers have to cater to the lower graphical power of the PS2 resulting in games without much difference between all 3 systems. On the other hand most of Nintendo's games are developed exclusivly for the system, taking advantage of the hardware to the utmost and resulting in a much cleaner, polished title. If you don't believe me look at pics of Twilight Princess. You would be hard pressed to find an Xbox game that looks as good visually. The next generation will be no different and everyone reports that all three systems will be comparable in terms of graphics if you are using a standard definition TV.
Let me draw another comparison. The Gamecube is not Dolby 5.1 capable, and Nintendo didn't include the support for it because it would have cost more money all around and because even though 5.1 has been around for years it is still not in many households. HDTV is the same way. It is an option, but has been an option for a handful of years already and penetration is like 15%. Sure that number will continue to rise. And they are phasing out regular TVs and putting full digital television out there but that is still 5 or so years away. Do you think everyone will have HDTV in 5 years? Even if penetration was up to 60 or 70% it will take all 5 years to get there. Don't you think it makes sense to save you alot of money now and 5 years down the road when the hardware is cheaper and the development tools for HD games are established to introduce HD videogames?
Think about the 360 for a moment. I have seen 360 titles selling for as high as $79.99! And while Microsoft is probably frantically trying to talk their developers into releasing at least the launch titles for $60 I gaurantee you that this price point will gradually rise. The reason being the added expense of developing HD games which also must be developed with different textures to support regular TVs as well. In contrast it wouldn'y surprise me if Nintendo released their 1st party titles (which represents a fair chunk of their lineup) at a price $10-15 LESS than what we view as the standard cost of a videogame ($50). If this happens the difference between a Nintendo game priced as low as $35-40 to a 360 or PS3 title selling as high as $75 will be pretty easy math for most people. Especially if they have a standard TV and can't see a difference in graphics between systems as has been reported will be the case.
Now to the maturity of video games. Its easy to look at a game like Doom 3 and say that it is mature when on a game mechanic level it is an extremly simple game, with a generic storyline, heaped with gore. The maturity obviously being the gore. In contrast a videogame like Sands of Time which pushes platforming mechanics to the limit and beyond, with a fairly complex storyline and interesting characters is also a 'mature' videogame. It has violence, but no gore. I would agree with the maturity of Sands of Time and disagree with the maturity of Doom 3. And when I say maturity here I am not talking about the ESRB rating, but rather a game that can engage and entertain an adult mind.
Alot of people see a Nintendo lineup and say "oh another Mario game." But in truth Nintendo has pushed the platforming mechanic with every Mario iteration, and the adventure mechanic with every Zelda title. The reason why Nintendo sticks to Mario is for 3 simple reasons. #1 A well established icon is the best and cheapest advertising. Everyone has heard of Mario. #2 The Mario character apeals to children. The lowkey and cartoony violence of Mario titles ensures that parents will be more willing to buy a Mario game for their child, meaning they will be more willing to buy a Nintendo console and will most likely protect their investment by purchasing additional titles in the future. #3 The Mario franchise appeals to adult gamers. The Mario franchise is one that a lot of older gamers have grown up with. They remember the fun they had as children when they play a current title. Most gamers who discredit the Mario franchise have never honestly played a game.
Another huge franchise for Nintendo is the Zelda franchise. This series has never been a 'kiddie' game. The storylines are usually very dark and what I would call mature. Many people point to Wind Waker as being childish but they base this judgement solely on the cartoon graphics of the title. The final fight ends with Link plunging his sword up to the hilt in Ganondorf's forehead. Some of the puzzles are so hard you will be proud of yourself for solving them, or you will break down and look online. The stoyline is very well thought out. And although I could have done without Tingle most of the characters were solid. On top of that there was so much you could collect and do that you could easily sink an extra 20 hours into the game just to do them all. Just like every other Zelda title.
There are many other games released for Nintendo that have maturity in spades if you look past Nintendos mascots and see the gameplay. Smash Brothers, Metroid Prime, Donkey Kong. The list goes on with each title pushing the mechanics of it's particular genre.
In addition Nintendo strives to innovate in their hardware. Constantly mixing things up with each new console. Giving developers new ideas and gamers new experiences. And this too has been one of their ideals from the beginning.
Well this is enough of this blog. The next blog is all about the NintendoDS and why it is smashing records across the board.
If you can think of a topic you would like to hear about, question you would like answered or a correction for me please feel free to comment.
Rivulet

The Real Nintendo

2006-01-18T13:06:00.000-08:00

I am so sick and tired of the politics surrounding the videogame industry. It makes me just sick. The reason why is obvious, gamers are competitive by nature. A competitive person will not admit defeat, even at the bitter end there is usually an excuse for your shortcomings ("I have been up for 35 hours", "My contact ripped in half", etc.)Because gamers are so competitive there is usually a huge divide between gamers with different systems. To make matters worse it is great marketing for system developers to play into the competition to try and hook a gamer for life. The gloves always come off (if they even started on) and low blows are commonplace.This may not be the best subject to start my blog with but it has been the one rattling around in my head of late. It is 'why is Nintendo always seen as second-rate?' This is a question that has had me up in arms more times than I could count. The story that has been perpetuated by the media, competeting corporations, and gamers alike is that Nintendo is for children,and they have inferior hardware. If this weren't he opposite of the truth I would'nt be sitting here typing.The facts are much different than the askew reality that you no doubt have at least heard if not believed yourself. The fact is that Nintendo is among the most mature videogame companies on the planet. With over 20 years of experience in putting together great products and software, they have proven their ability to compete with everyone and anyone that comes their way.Looking on this currently ending console generation for example, Nintendo reports a profit, both on consoles and software. In contrast Sony had a slight loss on hardware and a profit on software. Microsoft had a huge loss on hardware and could'nt possibly have made it up in software. With Nintendo selling the cheapest console you might wonder how they are making a profit. I will try and answer this question.The next console generation looms before us. 360 has just been released. PS3 and Revolution are poised for a launch probably next holiday season. The 360 was $400. The PS3 is estimated to ship for at least that amount. The estimates for the Revolution however are around $150, some even say a $99 pricepoint could be possible. Personally I think a $199 launch feels right. It undercuts the competition, recoups some development costs and leaves plenty of room for price cuts later. The same question can be asked, how is Nintendo making a profit? The answer that is blown out of proportion again and again is that they are filling that sleek, sexy box with inferior junk. This is of course, subjective to your view, but factually false.The hardware comprising the Revolution will be just as next-gen as the 360 and the PS3, meaning that brand new chips, boards, and technology has gone into its development. On top of that, the Revolution is the only platform with the ability to deliver next-gen games as well as next-gen graphics. The new controller has the ability to be the next morph in video game control, and it will make waves breathing new life into the FPS genre which has become increasingly stale, and RTS games which never made a real showing on consoles due to the lack of intuitive, responsive control.Back to our question of price and profit. Here is some homework. Open a new browser and google video cards. You will easily be able to find the best video card on the market. No matter when you read this the price will be somewhere around $450-500. Now, find the video card that the best one replaced and you will save yourself at least $300, yet it was cutting edge 6 months ago. This is how Nintendo is cutting costs, by doing what you and I would do when shopping for a graphics card, getting what we can afford. Of course, Microsoft and Sony are more than happy to pass these costs on to you, but they are also realising a loss per sale which is really hammering them, especially for the first couple years after launch. Nintendo has chosen what I see as a much wiser path, delivering graphics that are *nearly* on par with the competition for a price that they can't ever hope to match, while still turning a profit.The obvious question now is if the PS3 and Revolution are coming out a year later why can't they have comparable technology to the 360 while still undercutting the price? The answer is simple. Unlike graphics cards which can be replaced and upgraded apart from the rest of your computer a console system is completely proprietary, with every part tweaked to mesh perfectly with every other part instead of having a resource wasting software bridge connecting everything like in your PC. So Nintendo had already made most of their decisions about what they wanted the Revolution the be like long before we even were hearing rumors about it. Likewise with Microsoft and Sony. The graphics board will go down in price quickly, and new iterations will force older models out of production and onto clearance racks. In contrast a console will not supplant itself for another 5 years meaning no new products can force the price down. Not because they are gouging you with the console, but rather because the new graphics boards are gouging you with a price well above the value. They suck extra money at the top because they can't make money on any particular model for long. Consoles need to stay profitable, and hopefully desirable for a much longer lifespan.So that is in answer to the inferior hardware part of the question. I remember when the N64 came out and the graphics creamed the PS1, but the cry then was that graphics didn't matter so much and that Nintendo sucked because they had the much more expensive cartriges instead of the cheaper, and cheaper to program for CDs. Now the position is reversed and Nintendo sucks because they aren't supporting HD (which will result in more expensive games) and less powerful hardware. Why can't they make up their minds? And why does Nintendo suck when they are the only one pulling a profit?Next blog is why Nintendo games are much more mature than you may think. Until then.Rivulet

The Nintendo Apologetic Mk II

2006-01-18T12:07:00.000-08:00

Well, I have a site at 1up.com but I wanted to have a profile on Blogger so as to be able to post with a name. Actually, this is a much better blog site than 1up.com. I plan to move my post from there to here and keep them both.