Nintendo's Sticking With It

[Cupcakus]

They're going to release a next gen console in 2005/2006 with the other biggies.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/fun.games/01/...reut/index.html

[Lemmi]

nice quote

 

"When we withdraw from the home game console,  

that's when we withdraw from the video game business," he said.  

[Nukey Shay]

Haha...

"You hava velly big penis...I onry hava small."

[joeybastard]

It would be very cool if the next gen console played GC games as well. Hmm... Maybe I'll email them that suggestion.

[JagMX]

nintendo will end up going the way of sega eventually - they shouldnt even bother with another console, with the xbox2 and pos3 eyes will be more focused at those 2 rather than nintendo

[NE146]

nintendo will end up going the way of sega eventually - they shouldnt even bother with another console' date=' with the xbox2 and pos3 eyes will be more focused at those 2 rather than nintendo[/color']

 

Why's that? They all make consoles and heck they're pretty much all the same. ANY one of their next generation consoles could be more successful than the other at any point. So who knows?

 

My prediction? Nintendo aint going anywhere.. because that's ALL they do! (videogames that is)

[JagMX]

i say that because the Gamecube isnt doing as well as the other 2 are. And this article, straight from nintendo, tells the story as well. to me and only to me right now, i see the Gamecube as the Atari Jaguar of the 2000's. Its a good system, but its not really going very far. Sure just like the Jag, it was high on everyones list when it came out, and for the first few months it was taking off, but now it slowed down, while the xbox is taking off after a slow start.

 

they better make this next system more competitive to the newer consoles comin out, or nintendo might be going the way of sega. If they dont make any more consoles, they sure as hell wont just up and leave the game industry jus tlike that - Sega wasnt bitter because they couldnt pass their kick ass dreamcast around, so they backed off and made games for other companies

[sdstuff64]

It would be very cool if the next gen console played GC games as well.  Hmm... Maybe I'll email them that suggestion.

 

Why not?I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard,if the big N really loves us.

[Punisher5.0]

i say that because the Gamecube isnt doing as well as the other 2 are. And this article, straight from nintendo, tells the story as well. to me and only to me right now, i see the Gamecube as the Atari Jaguar of the 2000's. Its a good system, but its not really going very far. Sure just like the Jag, it was high on everyones list when it came out, and for the first few months it was taking off, but now it slowed down, while the xbox is taking off after a slow start.  

 

XBOX isn't doing any better than GameCube is and vise versa. According to the latest sales charts the only Top 20 game that XBOX has is Hitman 2. GameCube only has two games: Mario Party 4 and Starfox Adventures. Where as PS2 has 13 games on the Top 20 list .

[heavy-sixer]

I'm glad they are going for it! I hope they get the jump on Sony and MS and put out a killer product. I'm not a giant Nintendo fan, but I want to see as many good consoles out and competing as possible. I think that would be good for gaming in general.

[NE146]

Xbox is the next Dreamcast imho

[benjam138]

Xbox is the next Dreamcast imho

 

Agreed!

[Starscream]

Ok, here's my thoughts. The big N is way behind on the times. The N64 and now GC are products of what Nintendo wants to make - not what the gaming audience wants. Now, I'm not saying that nobody wants what they release, but they are too concerned with doing what they feel is best instead of whats best for gamers. Examples - N64 - overly priced games all because of the fear of having a cd based format system. In the end, it hurt the system horribly. Not only were the graphics, sounds, gameplay outdated from almost the start, why would anyone buy a multiplatform game that was at least $20 more than it was on another system? They may have pushed cartridges to the limit but not enough to convince everyone that it was better. Example - GC - another different format all in fear of pirated software. Funny thing is, about a day after the GCs release, pirated software was available. And, even though games can be released as 4 discs or 8 if needed, a more realistic format should have been used. Do I want my kid having the chance to scratch say 4 discs instead of just 1? Now online gaming is not important to some and important to others, but they can't afford NOT to support it and so far, they haven't. Nintendo has never needed any strategy to sell systems - they sold on name alone. But it's too competetive right now NOT to have a strategy. Re-releasing games that are 8 years old with improved graphics won't be enough to get gamers to buy a GC. And if online gaming is important to the buyer, would you buy the only one that has no support for it? Sure they can say that later on they will support it, but anyone who's been into gaming knows that Nintendo has always had a history of promising things and never delivering. I don't feel the GC has an impressive lineup of games right now - but thats my opinion. I almost never look at GC games when I'm buying. Some impressive titles are coming, but rumor has it that they may not be GC exclusives now because of dropping sales. They need to target ALL gamers from now on, not just loyal ones. With a price of $140 for the past few weeks, it's a no-brainer to get one. But if they wanna stay in gaming and be serious about it, they can't depend on price to sway buyers. They really need to focus on gamers wants and needs. The Nintendo name is established, the quality is top notch, now it's time to give it 100%

[Rhindle The Red]

And this article' date=' straight from nintendo, tells the story as well.[/color']

 

And that same article also has this quote from Takehiko Takachio, senior portfolio manager at Kokusai Asset Management:

If they dont make any more consoles' date=' they sure as hell wont just up and leave the game industry jus tlike that[/color']

 

I think what he means by that is that they'll stop making systems when they're gone completely.

 

I've said this before (the last time when I posted this very news of a next Nintendo console weeks ago) and I'll say it again.

 

Nintendo isn't going anywhere.

 

Oh, yes, yes. I've been answering all afternoon.

[CPUWIZ]

The same for Sony.  When the gaming side is losing money (most of the time) the other areas make up for it.

 

Actually the gaming side has been making more profit than any other division of Sony for years now.

[krisjohn]

You don't ressurect an ailing console family with a new console rushed to market this close to the release of the previous one (32X-Saturn-DC). You fix your problems with more and better games.

 

Or possibly cheaper ones.

 

It can't possibly cost A$100 to make a copy of a video game. I bet demand would rise more than enough to compensate if Nintendo simply halved the cost of new GC games.

[MacGurl]

So, your proposal is that they not only lose money selling the systems, but to discount the games they sell which is where they actually make money? It doesn't seem to me like they would make more profits that way.

[krisjohn]

So, your proposal is that they not only lose money selling the systems, but to discount the games they sell which is where they actually make money?  It doesn't seem to me like they would make more profits that way.  

 

I bet demand would rise more than enough to compensate if Nintendo simply halved the cost of new GC games.

 

Basic economics. When the price falls the demand rises. The ratio is the tricky bit, but lets say:

 

1) At A$100 for a new video game I buy one per year (and, say, several DVDs at A$40 each)

2) At A$50 for a new video game I buy three per year (and buy fewer DVDs -- that's where the extra $50/year comes from.)

 

Lets say that it costs A$10 for a company to actually make a legitimate copy of a video game and get it to the shelf (fixed costs). In example 1) they get A$90 a year from me to pay their developers, coders, management, etc. In example 2) they get A$120 a year.

 

Looks like a higher profit to me. Although these numbers are largely made up the maths isn't.

 

If a new video game was less than twice the price of a new music CD (rather than over three times as it is here in Australia at the moment) which would you think is better value? If a new video game was the same price as a DVD movie, which do you think is more entertainment time for your money?

[Rhindle The Red]

Actually the gaming side has been making more profit than any other division of Sony for years now.

 

The gaming division lost money as recently as 2000. They returned to profitability in mid-2001. So if a year and a half is "years" to you, then fine.

 

The fact is that Sony often operates its games division at a loss (usually at launch time) and has never earned back all of their development costs dating back to the SNES "PlayStation" add-on. This means that over the ten+ years of Sony's direct involvement in video games, they have lost more money than they've earned. Right now (the last couple of years) they are profitable. They have never proven that they can maintain profitability over the long haul. Nintendo managed to launch two systems in 2001 and still make a profit. They are simply a better video game company than Sony is. They know how to run a video game business better.

 

@krisjohn: The problem with that statement is that Nintendo just did it. The Game Boy Color had only recently been released and hadn't even reached the peak of it's potential when they released the GBA. It was a pre-emptive strike against anyone (Sony or Microsoft) who might be thinking about getting into the hand-held market. If the GCN2 is fully backwards compatible with the GCN, I don't see how it hurts them to release it as soon as they can. If they can get the jump on the competition for once, it may just make the difference.

The living...they have no suspicion of your movements?

[BoOchan!]

Our Main Chain Retailer In This Country, ColesMyer, are thinking of Refusing to carry the Gamecube due to Extreamly Slow Sales. 800 Units a Week is the Average for The Gamecube Here, leaving it taking A Tiny %2 Of the Australian Market. Nintendo Australia have always being Lazy with Advertising here, They never advertise or they advertise at Odd Times, like at 2-3am. Gamecube will die here this year if they don't Reduce the prices %50 or so. It Seems Australian Consumers re happy with the PS2 and Xbox, the Strong Sellers of the market each with about %45 Share each of the Australian Gaming Market. For Instance, The Xbox Started at A$700 For the Base Unit, and they halved the price, and they got popular here.

[Gunstar]

nintendo will end up going the way of sega eventually - they shouldnt even bother with another console' date=' with the xbox2 and pos3 eyes will be more focused at those 2 rather than nintendo[/color']

 

 

My prediction? Nintendo aint going anywhere.. because that's ALL they do! (videogames that is)

 

Umm...wrong. Nintendo started out as a playing card company, and they STILL are...ever heard of POKE'MON? That's Nintendo (at least they started it, I think possibly Wizards of the Coast handles Poke'mon in the US now, IIRC)! I think they will go the way of Sega too, the holiday season's sales stats showed the Xbox sold 147% more consoles than Nintendo and of course Sony has about 60% of the market share. Sega didn't call it quits right away, they went through several "failed" consoles before they quit, Nintendo will be the same way if they don't turn things around soon. The main problem they have is that they still focus on kids as the main audience and kids don't have all the money, adults do, and adults are buying PS2 and Xbox because of the high percentage of mature themed games.

[cimerians]

3 consoles with the same games on all of them?!

How long will this go on?!??

 

I'm sick of it.

 

I hope someone creates a console thats light years ahead of anyone else and is actually......different. (In some way I don't know).

 

Who will do this? I think only Sony or Microsoft can.

Nintendo (who I'll always appreciate) will continue with Metroid, Mario, Pokemon and Starfox sequels for the next 45 years.

 

I guess what I'm getting at is I hope someone stands out and completely dominates in more ways than what the PS2 has done. I don't care who it is, I just don't want to see the same damn games on all systems like it is today.

[Punisher5.0]

Umm...wrong. Nintendo started out as a playing card company, and they STILL are...ever heard of POKE'MON? That's Nintendo (at least they started it, I think possibly Wizards of the Coast handles Poke'mon in the US now, IIRC)! I think they will go the way of Sega too, the holiday season's sales stats showed the Xbox sold 147% more consoles than Nintendo and of course Sony has about 60% of the market share. Sega didn't call it quits right away, they went through several "failed" consoles before they quit, Nintendo will be the same way if they don't turn things around soon. The main problem they have is that they still focus on kids as the main audience and kids don't have all the money, adults do, and adults are buying PS2 and Xbox because of the high percentage of mature themed games.

 

Why is at that people still perceive Nintendo as a little kid company? What about games like Metroid,Conkers Bad Fur Day, Resident Evil, and BMX XXX uncensored? Do you think those games are targeted to kids? Most of the adult themed games for the other systems are available for GameCube too.

[CPUWIZ]

Why is at that people still perceive Nintendo as a little kid company? What about games like Metroid,Conkers Bad Fur Day, Resident Evil, and BMX XXX uncensored? Do you think those games are targeted to kids? Most of the adult themed games for the other systems are available for GameCube too.

 

Uhm, I have to agree with Mr.5.0, this has pissed me off for a long time.

 

* cough * Dead To Rights.

[Starscream]

And don't forget "Dead To Rights". Is that better CPU?