Nintendo the next Atari

[Goochman]

Had an interesting thought today -

 

For those of us that thought Atari could've survived if Tramiel hadnt screwed up one only need to look at Sega an Nintendo...........

 

Who'd a thunk 5 years ago that we would be talking about Nintendo exiting the console business in the next go round when Sony and Microsoft come out with their next systems? Hard to fathom........The reason Atari didnt survive was it never had the 'creative' content to support itself after the hardware didnt pay for itself.

 

Sega and Nintendo still have marketable products regardless of platform - Atari always licensed others characters (ok, a few good titles we internal homebrews)

 

So,

In conclusion Tramiel or not Atari would be where it is today IMHO.

[sku_u]

Nintendo is a great platform and it's truly amazing how many games have come out for the various Nintendo systems over the years. The NES could easily be compared to the Atari in that it had a long run with an incredible game base, the SNES is similar to the 5200 in that it had a lot of great games, but a lesser run than its predecessor, the N64 could be the 7800 and the Gamecube could be the Jaguar (except that it is a lot more popular than the Jaguar).

 

The bottom line is that history is kind of repeating itself. As for Nintendo being the next Atari, that's impossible to do. That would be like saying Sammy Sosa could be the next babe Ruth. There can only be one original and it's hard to compare different generations.

[EricBall]

From a failure point of view, Nintendo does seem to be faltering. The NES and SNES were market leaders, but then the VirtualBoy was a complete failure and the N64 and GCN were and have been lackluster against the PS1 and the PS2/Xbox respectively.

 

Where Nintendo is having success and making money is with the Gameboy line and the Pokemon franchises.

 

Could Nintendo fall like Atari or N's old competitor Sega? I wouldn't be surprised if they back out of the traditonal console battle and focus on handhelds. (Maybe a handheld version of the GCN...) It depends on what comes first - pride or profits.

[Rhindle The Red]

People, people, people.

 

How many times do I have to tell you that Nintendo is in absolutely no trouble?

 

They are financially stable.

 

They are profitable (yes, even the GameCube is profitable).

 

They have over $2Billion in the bank.

 

They control over 50% of the total video game market (consoles and handhelds).

 

They are nothing like Atari, which was bleeding money and earning nothing for years.

 

A large market share means nothing if you're losing money you can't afford to (hello, Sega?). A smaller market share (like Nintendo's) is fine as long as you're still making money.

 

Microsoft and Sony can battle it out over their all-in-one systems to see who can claim to have the largest piece of the pie (and lose a lot of money in the process). Nintendo will sit by quietly, making the best games, lots of money and new systems when they want to.

 

Once more with feeling:

 

NINTENDO IS IN THE HARDWARE BUSINESS TO STAY!!!!!!!

 

 

..............end of line.................

[NE146]

Agreed. Nintendo aint going anywhere. And that's great news.. I LOVE my Gamecube and it's games as I'm sure I'd love the next Nintendo console as well.

 

That being said, I love my xbox and ps2 as well. It's a happy family

[Mindfield]

Erm ... actually, Nintendo announced close to a year ago that Gamecube would be their last console, after which they would concentrate on the software end of things. Nintendo's new CEO Satora Iwata announced it not long after taking over from the retiring Hiroshi Yamauchi, claiming a lack of confidence in the future of the video game industry and making what was to become the rather scandalous statement, "No matter what great product you come up with, people get bored. I feel like a chef cooking for a king who's full.”

 

There's an editorial about it here. I don't know what's become of his position since then, but I've heard nothing to the contrary, at any rate.

[JerseyDevil]

Mindfield, Nintendo did no such thing, don't believe every rumor you read Nintendo sells the Gamecube for $149 and makes money on every console, Microsoft loses $100 on every XBOX it sells, Nintendo could not sustain those loses.

[A2600]

Nintendo needs to "BUST Out" with something good to rival XBOX and PS2

Nintendo need a more powerful system!!!

[BatmiteReturns]

Nintendo's not going anywhere.

 

Lets no forget, Nintendo still has a monopoly on the handheld market and that's a big chunk of change. For proof of this, they are getting people to pay $99 for basically the same handheld they already have with just a built in light and rechargable batteries.

 

The system sold out in mere hours in Japan and pre-orders have been through the roof here in North America.

 

Nintendo's going to be around for awhile.

[priest5]

Sega's demise has been overrated. Sega is still a freakishly powerful third party company under the same leadership (Sega of Japan) as before.

 

There is a heck of difference between the Nintendo corporation and the Sega/Atari Corporations. Instead of having honest boneheaded morons running the marketing portion of their business they have a group of highly profficeint marketers that are more than willing to use underhanded tactics to capture market shares.

 

Nintendo does not have a monopoly on the handheld market. To have a monopoly one must have no competitors. Nintendo does have competitors. The GP-32, the Wonderswan Color, and even the old NGPC compete fro shares. Nintendo merely controls 90% of the American market.

 

@Batmite...

 

So nintendo is going to take the GBA put it into a barely smaller, much less durable, case, that folds like a clamshell. Front-light it, because they still don't understand the concept of back lighting, then sell it for $139.95 US.

 

What would be the point of that when you could by a portable playstation with a 5 inch screen for not much more than that... Or buy the $90 gamecube screen, with the RCA-style inputs, and connect whaver game system you feel like to it.

(A portble dreamcast would only cost 130-140 this way.)

 

@A2600

 

A more powerful system? Why do they need that?

 

The much vaunted Playstation 2.... Do you remember the old Sega Dreamcast? Yea, that system that you just knew your PS2 was superior to. Sadly due to a bottleneck in the Playstation 2's designs, the dreamcast was capable, in real life, of manipulating far more polygon's on the TV screen.

 

A more powerful system like... The intellivision compared to the VCS, the Sega Master System compared to the NES? It is not the power of a gaming system that will rule whether it lives or dies....

 

It is the quality of the games produced for it.

 

Sadly I have yet to see some amazingly innovative game from Nintendo for the gamecube.

[joeybastard]

I'm always surprised at people referring to GC as not being as powerful as the PS2/Xbox. While the hardware performs differently, I hardly think the Cube suffers in graphics or gameplay. In fact I would argue that percentage wise the GC has a better good game/release ratio then the other 2.

 

Atari was mismanaged and started to seriously lack imagination. Nintendo suffers from neither of these ailments at the moment.

[llabnip]

Sega's demise has been overrated.  

 

Er... For those of us with a love/passion for the Sega Saturn (the single best console I've ever had the pleasure of playing) and Dreamcast, I can assure you that they have gone into great demise. And as much as I love Sega, I have no illusions that they didn't simply abandon those of us who were huge supporters of thier hardware. I could go on a _huge_ dissertation about the many places Sega went wrong from 1992-2002, but most of you don't have the patience to read it and this is the wrong forum

 

It is not the power of a gaming system that will rule whether it lives or dies....  

It is the quality of the games produced for it.

 

Unfortunately, the PSX vs. Saturn shows that this is not quite true. IMHO, the best games for the Saturn (mostly from Japan) hold up much better than the best games for the PSX - though there were lots more PSX games released. I firmly believe it has more to do with ease of programming, proper marketeing techniques, and supporting developers properly. Certianly you also need quality games - but all systems have them. Sony had effective marketing techniques and the PSX had simple canned libraries so that games could be produced faster and with a consistant graphical look whereas the Saturn programmers were given great hardware, great hardware documents but had to do much of the grunt work themselves - many programmers at the time headed for the ease that was the PSX).

 

Sega is still a freakishly powerful third party company under the same leadership (Sega of Japan) as before.

 

That's what I'm afraid of. Great games, questionable managment decisions.

 

As for Nintendo being the next Atari - there can be only one orginal But certianly they are as popular as Atari has ever been - most people seem to have owned an NES or SNES at some point in thier life (or at least played on one). Much like Atari - where a huge number of people have played or seen an Atari 2600 in thier lifetime... except some of the younger generation (say, under 12) that never got much of a chance to play on one.

 

We had a "Who We Are" day last year at work where everyone brings in thigns that represent themselves outside of work. There was a table setup in one room where we could display these items. Among the many things I brought in (way too many hobbies!) were some Atari 2600 games and a joystick for display. Tons of people came up to me and said "I remember the Atari!" and had some fond story of how they had one as a kid. Neat stuff.

[Goochman]

Let me clarify my original posting -

 

I didnt say Nintendo is going out of business, but alot of folks see them out of the Hardware side of things. Sega again is a good example of this.

 

Unbeliveable that Sony and MS could enter this market (deep pockets) and steal their thunder away -

 

Forget about the hardcore gamer - If you walked the playgrounds what consoles would be talked about the most? Nintendo makes kiddie games.

[A2600]

LUCKY BASTARDS!

 

MS and Sony!!

 

Stick to COMPUTERS (MS) and MUSIC SYSTEMS (SONY)

 

Although the where pretty lucky!

 

They came in at the right time! When I had actually wanted a GC but PS2 stole my heart away not much like the NES is better than the SNES to me BUT...

Thats another story..

 

Cheers,

 

A2600

[AtariDude]

As much as people would like to think that Nintendo is going away (it's not), they are quite well off financially. They have some popular franchises like Mario, Link, and a few others and maybe they might decide to release some games for the PS2 or Xbox in the near future. Sure would be great to see that although I don't expect that to happen for at least a few years (assuming of course that Nintendo does not release yet another console).

[ihuntley]

I think another thing people overlook when doomsaying for Nintendo is this...

 

What is the number one selling gaming system of ALL TIME?

 

The Game Boy.

 

Game Boy, GBC, and the GBA would make Nintendo an insanely successful company if that's ALL they had.

 

But, it's not all they have. Pokemon alone could float the company.

 

D. Dodge Silver.

[Video]

Nintendo does not have a monopoly on the handheld market.  To have a monopoly one must have no competitors. Nintendo does have competitors. The GP-32, the Wonderswan Color, and even the old NGPC  compete fro shares.  Nintendo merely controls 90% of the American market.  

 

Er...I don't know where you live. But name one of those handhelds that is on store shelves in america. I doubt you can do it. And you listed two systems that are for all intents and purposes, dead. (WonderSwan Color, and NeoGeo Pocket Color) Although, I'll hand it to you, at least NGPC did make it to america befor duying.

 

Having a Monopolly doesn't mean you're the only guy on the block, it means you effectively cut everybody else out, and more or less own the market (why do you think Microsoft is in lawsuits about having a monopoly with Windows, when there's so many other operating systems out there?)

[Happy_Dude]

Who else is sick and tired of this talk. Seems to be discussed every other

week Nintendo is rolling in the Dollars. Leaving a DVD player out of

the GC decreased costs and increassed profits (I can buy a REAL DVD player

for less than half the price of a GC anyway).

 

The only games I ever bought new where Nintendo games, not saying I don't

like other systems, it's just Nintendo are the only company that actually got

any of MY money everything else was second hand

[raindog]

Nintendo does not have a monopoly on the handheld market.  To have a monopoly one must have no competitors. Nintendo does have competitors. The GP-32, the Wonderswan Color, and even the old NGPC  compete fro shares.  Nintendo merely controls 90% of the American market.  

 

Actually, Nintendo controls 100% of the American handheld market, as none of those other consoles are even for sale here. Sure the NGPC was, and you can order the other two from importers, but monopolies are made at Wal-Mart, not Lik-Sang. And discontinued consoles are "vanquished competitors", not "competitors"

 

If Nintendo decided to use the profits from their handheld operations to fund some kind of major change in the console market (like GameCube for $49 with a pack-in game and controller and BBA) and it gave them a majority share in that market, Sony and Microsoft would have a pretty good antitrust case against them; see my similar post about Sony/N vs. MS in the X-Box thread. Of the three players, only Sony doesn't have a monopoly to exploit, though Nintendo is too financially conservative to do so either.

[Goochman]

Back to the original question - a bit more clarity....

 

5 years ago could you ahve predicted Nintendo to be in 3rd place with regard to consoles - not handhelds, not pokeymon, etc......

 

I never stated Nintendo would be out of business, just out of business making core consoles - For handhelds, yes they are the bomb in the States and Pokeymon makes them big bucks, but like Atari in the early 80s no one prob wouldve thought Nintendo would take over.

[Invader_dag]

nintendo is not going anywhere. for one, they have already planned the succesor to the GC, so you can forget anything about them backing out now.

second, the GBA(SP) has aobut 100,000 unit lead on the PS2. That makes Nintendo secure as well.

third, in a recent report, nintendo hold %14 of the console market, and MS owns %12. It was linked to in the Modern gaming board, it was by CNN i think.

fourth, the X-Box is selling just a few more units than the playstation one in japan!!!! and GC is in a firm second, and GBA is the lead by a large margin.

fifth, Pokemon Ruby and Saphire. They are going to be mega hits for Nintendo.

sixth, Zelda, it has already gotten half as many preorders as how many copies of GTA3 sold!!

And thats not even mentioning the sales of Metroid Prime.

 

So really, Nintendo is not going anywhere soon, they are doing great in the market, they have been putting out great games constantly and they won`t back out yet.

[Rhindle The Red]

Back to the original question.

I don't think we ever left the original question. The question was whether Nintendo would exit the console business.

 

The answer is no. There's no reason for them to.

[tyranthraxus]

Both companies had image problems. After 1985 Atari's name was

mud as console manufacturer. I remember thinking it was laughable that

Jaguar was made at the time. Today Nintendo has this kiddie game image

that is hurting their console sales.

 

Nintendo's problem is that apart from the Gameboy they have been

getting diminishing returns on every console since the NES. While you can't stay #1 forever the fact is that they are losing customers with each

new generation. The Gameboy ensures that we will see them around for

a long time but it would be nice it see Sony or MS try to make a legitimate

alternative to the GB.

 

I'm more interested to know what MS's next move is. The Xbox losses

are piling up.

[Fretwobbler]

 

A more powerful system? Why do they need that?    

 

The much vaunted Playstation 2.... Do you remember the old Sega Dreamcast? Yea, that system that you just knew your PS2 was superior to.  Sadly due to a bottleneck in the Playstation 2's designs, the dreamcast was capable, in real life, of manipulating far more polygon's on the TV screen.

 

Is that really true?!?!? I love my DC (and my PS2) but I cant believe that.

[Invader_dag]

it is true, it is more powerful than the PS2.

And considering that the true potential of the DC was never reached, due to failing so quickly, it is really amazing to think what could have been accomplished with it if enough time was given.