M$.... afraid?

[Bivotar]

The same Papermario with a different controller.

The same Mario64 with a different controller.

The same Mario Golf with a different controller.

The same Mario Kart with a different controller.

The same Mario Tennis with a different controller.

The same Zelda with a different controller.

The same Animal Crossing with a different controller.

The same Star Fox with a different controller.

 

How about "the same first-person shooters and Grand Theft Auto clones with the SAME controller?" Oh wait, that's Microsoft and Sony.

 

JR

 

Or check out the Atari 5200 or 7800 catalog. Oh boy, Pac Man and Centipede... again.

 

Call them "sequels" or whatever, but doesn't practically every console suffer from the same issue? Along similar lines, think of the many Pac Man clones. Now we have FPS clones (oh boy, I'm fighting in WWII, now I'm in space, now I'm back in WWII...).

 

And I really don't give a rat's ass if a console is considered a "flop" if I enjoy it. I loved my Gamecube (now replaced with a Wii) and it has more games than I will ever play.

[Paranoid]

I'd have better luck convincing Christian that Bush is the best thing since sliced bread.

*AHEM* Stop antagonizing the posters. Thank you.

 

More seriously:

 

I'm just going to tell myself that arguing with Nintendo fanboys over a Nintendo console is like arguing with Christian Evangelicals about God.

 

Stop antagonizing the posters. Thanks.

 

Ok... point taken... But... it pisses me off...

 

Like this last post, the guy points out a perfectly GOOD argument...

 

"So what if Nintendo has franchises that have appeared on every console they've released since the NES? Pick your poison, Mario and Zelda or Tony Hawk and GTA...."

 

Great point...

 

Then he goes on to basically say, "I don't care if it was a flop, I loved my Gamecube, and I replaced it with a Wii".

 

Which is basically admitting that his opinion is biased and that he wouldn't care if they repackaged 2600 technology as the next generation Nintendo console, he would buy it, and claim it was great. Which, in my opinion, I am seeing a lot of here.

 

Listen, if you like it, great. But the fact that Microsoft has a different vision and is following their tried and true method (sink millions and millions initially to make BILLIONS later)... isn't really relevent. If anything, it skews the whole thing. Microsoft never PLANNED on making money the first time around, not from hardware sales, anyhow. I think Microsoft is probably more likely celebrating that it appears they will murder SONY this round, then worrying much at all about what Nintendo does or doesn't achieve with the Wii.

 

I think the Nintendo guys here have made some good points about *broad* appeal... and my guess is that Microsoft will pick up on that, and we'll see a move towards a console with broader appeal from Microsoft, either this generation, or next. I think the thing is that Microsoft will approach broad appeal by making both very mature games and tamer games broadly available... as opposed to having one at the sacrafice of the other.

 

I'm happy the Wii is doing well. It also points out that both Sony and Microsoft got too ambitious for what a console can be. They underestimated how much cash consumers would part with for a video game system. It makes the Wii seem like a bargain. I think the Wii is the most compelling product right now.

 

But there is no *doubt* it is less of a machine, with less potential, from a purely technical perspective - and that past experience illustrates that Nintendo does not deliever well on a truly BROAD appeal library (which is why Sony and XBox have been able to build a market catering to a demographic that Nintendo does not cater to). Now. Just because a thing is more or less technically powerful has never been a traditional measure of success in this kind of industry. I'm sure we all have our favorite examples of this. I'm ok with celebrating the success of the Wii and the unique ways that it *is* an innovative, broadly appealing machine. But, we can establish that without getting into adolescent fanboyism that has nothing to do with the reality of the situation.

[jbanes]

I think Microsoft is probably more likely celebrating that it appears they will murder SONY this round, then worrying much at all about what Nintendo does or doesn't achieve with the Wii.

I agree with this. I think it was on this forum that I mentioned that Microsoft plans to ride Nintendo's coattails this generation. If they can pound the Wii60 idea into enough heads, they'll do well for themselves AND crush Sony. What I don't think Microsoft is doing is seeing Nintendo as a serious long-term competitor. Which is a mistake.

 

past experience illustrates that Nintendo does not deliever well on a truly BROAD appeal library

Interesting, we're seeing the exact opposite in this generation. The PSP and PS3 are designed to appeal to only the hardcore gamer population, while the Nintendo DS and Wii are designed to appeal to the Soduku players of the world. What a flip-flop that was.

 

BTW, just because someone is biased doesn't mean that their point is automatically invalid. A good but biased point is still a good point.

[Starscream]

 

I think it was on this forum that I mentioned that Microsoft plans to ride Nintendo's coattails this generation.

 

Talk about premature ejaculation.

Interesting, we're seeing the exact opposite in this generation. The PSP and PS3 are designed to appeal to only the hardcore gamer population, while the Nintendo DS and Wii are designed to appeal to the Soduku players of the world. What a flip-flop that was.

 

He shoots twice before she drops the panties !!

[jbanes]

Talk about premature ejaculation.

 

He shoots twice before she drops the panties !!

I would suggest getting your mind out of the gutter. It may help with your perspective. (Or lack thereof.)

[+swlovinist]

I'm happy the Wii is doing well. It also points out that both Sony and Microsoft got too ambitious for what a console can be. They underestimated how much cash consumers would part with for a video game system. It makes the Wii seem like a bargain. I think the Wii is the most compelling product right now

 

 

I agree with this totally. The saddest thing is, the Wii which is technically inferior to all three is able to surf the net, get news, and play old roms from several systems past. While the 360 does the whole arcade game thing well, it could do a better job at selecting different old school games for download and offering a web browser, espically at $150 more to buy. The PS3 needs more games for download as well. As ambitious as both systems the PS3 and 360 are, they are being shown up on basic user functions buy a system with a fraction of the processing power. Make no mistake, If I was to be a fanboy, I am a fanboy of retrogaming on any platform.

[Paranoid]

And, anyhow... yeah, I agree with your post completely, jbanes.

 

This is a *rational* perspective. I agree, counting Nintendo as a one shot thing with the Wii is probably a mis-step, if Microsoft is indeed doing this.

 

The Wii kind of embraces the kind of "return to simplicity" that the retro community keeps arguing makes a case for consoles like the FB3. From everything I've seen and heard, it sounds like the Wii really has throughput and graphics capabilities that are near the bottom of the *last* generation. Which was a great way to cut costs and come out at a price point that really destroys the competition.

 

I think that this is also made a little less important by the fact that I think a lot of gamers see the current PS3 and X360 as not really enhancing gameplay *that* much for the investment required. I just turned on Soul Caliber 2 and Crimson Skies today, and the cut scenes, the in-game graphics... were *very* impressive. This is on an Xbox. Is an Xbox 360 really going to redefine the visual or gameplay experience THAT much? I don't think it is worth another $450+. Basically, you're paying $450 for more realistic environmental effects in FPSers. That is where the real payoff shows. Heat distortion, accurate reflections of the sun off of every helmet in a scene... *tiny* little details that enhance the sense of realism... But, an Xbox can *certainly* do a fantastic job at this kind of thing... and if the PS2 sales showed anything, it is that this isn't ALL that important to a lot of gamers, anyhow. But this is the line where Microsoft and Sony have drawn their battle.

 

Now, Microsoft is a pretty ruthless company known for incredibly nasty business practices. It doesn't seem far fetched to me to imagine Microsoft engaging Sony in a "technology arms race"... that they're certain Sony can't win... knowing that it will give Nintendo a chance to establish itself during THIS generation as the sales leader... with the idea that after Sony is spanked, Nintendo can be dealt with later - a generation or two down the road. Sony was the problem. They had uncontested dominance for a *long* time. That appears to be over, which was Microsoft's goal. Sony had a stranglehold... Nintendo, by comparisson, simply has an *opportunity* to re-establish itself as a contender.

 

I'd say that the "broad" appeal to the Soduku players of the world isn't a flip flop... nor is Sony remaining committed to the hardcore gamer market. It seems like Nintendo is following their formula predictably. I'm sure they would love to have a Wii sensation like Gameboy Tetris. Broadly appealing puzzle games and sanitary, wholesome franchises are the only reason Nintendo has remained a player at all. But through that whole period, from the original Gameboy to today, they've consistently been unable to bridge the divide between broad appeal and hardcore appeal. And... they haven't had a Tetris for a *long* time. You could argue the Pets thing or the PokeMon thing approached that kind of hysteria... but really... they're a whole different thing.

 

It is a weird time for gaming, and I think it is premature to speculate on anything. Something like this Guitar Hero franchise will come along, for one of the consoles, as an exclusive title, and catch the imagination and fancy of the HUGE buying product... probably. Or this generation may end up just a footnote in gaming history... a lull or a crash. But I think the *bashing* is just ridiculious. They've all got their angle. I'm not even ready to count Sony *out* yet, although it looks like they'll lose this round. Things just aren't going to same as they have in the past... which should be troubling, I think. All bets seem to be off.

[AtariJr]

knowing that it will give Nintendo a chance to establish itself during THIS generation as the sales leader... with the idea that after Sony is spanked, Nintendo can be dealt with later - a generation or two down the road. Sony was the problem. They had uncontested dominance for a *long* time. That appears to be over, which was Microsoft's goal. Sony had a stranglehold... Nintendo, by comparisson, simply has an *opportunity* to re-establish itself as a contender.

 

Or this generation may end up just a footnote in gaming history... a lull or a crash.

 

in response to the first part, i think this is what is really going on. i think that while m$ DOES consider nintendo a threat, i think the reason why they are publically not concerned is that they have done what they set out to do, strip sony of thier power. and i think, lik eyou said, that they think they can just deal with them later... not like 360 sales are hurting (in north america).

 

honestly, now this is excluding the wii, but i am really really scared of a video game crash like you mentioned. all the people i know here at college (a pretty good amount) think its obsurd to spend so much money on a gaming system. my one roomate loves sony and all thier games and systems. his gf said that when kingdom hearts 3 comes out they can save up for a ps3. he said "hell no, im never spending that much money on a gaming system. if i have to save up for a gaming system, then its not worth my money... saving is for homes, cars, retirement... not games." and i think that represents how a lot of people think about the new prices of systems out there. i think that maybe not this generation so much, but the next... if this trend continues, it could really disinterest most gamers and really sufficate the market. i guess only time will tell.

[moycon]

Ever notice how every console generation since the 2600 people have predicted another crash?

Amazing thing is what was once a niche market is like an annual 8 billon dollar industry now.

I think it's safe to say the market isnt going to crash, I don't even have to wait and see , call me a business genius if you wish.

8 billion dollars??? Let that figure sink in.

To place it in a better perspective, a billion seconds ago, it was the year 1959, times that by 8.

I can tell you now...It aint going to crash so don't worry.

Edited April 10, 2007 by moycon

[Paranoid]

I'm sure at one point the Recording industry would have laughed at the idea that they would experience a crash too, Moycon.

 

Guess what...

 

A crash is a relative thing, and the bigger you are, the more billions you lose.

 

I think the pricing of this generation is just one of the problems. The repetitive nature of the games is another. Crimson Skies, while beautiful, doesn't really have a lot to distinguish it from any other 3rd person vehicle game out there that I've ever played on the XBox.

 

Which is why the Wii defies so many of the problems going on right now. But, I think that if Sony and/or Microsoft had something in the $200-$300 range available, things might be different... and I can see Microsoft returning to this range once they successfully unseat Sony.

 

Of course, Sony isn't a dumb company either.

 

All of it together makes it an interesting time. Add in digital convergence, Microsoft's faltering home OS dominance... (yet flat/stale PC sales overall) and... well... I think it is a total crapshoot.

 

Actually, the economy itself could have a big impact on the future course of gaming. If the housing crisis evolves into a full fledged recession or depression, entertainment dollars will become tight.

[jbanes]

The factors that led to the minor and major video game crashes are no longer present. To be specific, everyone was competing in the same high-priced market for a limited number of dollars. When the amount of available material exceeded the number of dollars available, the industry only needed a light for the fuse. In the case of the major crash, Trameil lit it and the whole house of cards came tumbling down.

 

That situation won't happen again simply because there's a lot more diversity. Should a recession happen, you'll see a lot more focus on budget titles. That could mean that all the current competitors would be displaced by a new competitor with hardware way behind the curve. More likely, it would mean that the current crop of competitors would dust off their last-gen titles and resell them as budget items. In Sony's case, they may even continue the sales of the PS2 for a long time to come. Nintendo might reissue the Gamecube in addition to reissuing many of the GC titles. Microsoft would be in its usual poor position, but they have the money to simply wait out any recession.

 

On the bright side, a recession could mean a drop in Wii title prices. Perhaps even the popular $19.99 "Players Choice" program that Nintendo pushed with the GameCube. I honestly doubt that any of this will occur, but hey, it could happen.

[ninjarabbit]

The factors that led to the minor and major video game crashes are no longer present. To be specific, everyone was competing in the same high-priced market for a limited number of dollars. When the amount of available material exceeded the number of dollars available, the industry only needed a light for the fuse. In the case of the major crash, Trameil lit it and the whole house of cards came tumbling down.

 

Trameil didn't cause the Crash, he just was the one who picked up Atari (the home division) after the Crash, Warner was who led Atari into the crash.

 

To say the factors that could cause a crash are no longer present is quite false. With the R&D costs and manufacturing of consoles skyrocketing and the cost of making games skyrocketing it's gotten to the point where games have to be blockbusters to break even and consoles have to be huge sellers to break even. Microsoft lost $4 billion on the X Box and that sold over 24 million consoles. I think it was only last year that Sony started to make a profit on the PS2 due to high R&D and manufacturing costs, if the PS2 had "only" sold about 30 million or so Sony would have likely experienced similar losses that Microsoft did. Not too many companies can absorb losses like Microsoft did last generation and if they have similar losses thins gen I doubt there will be a 3rd generation X Box and if Sony posts huge losses on the PS3 it's possible there won't be a PS4 or even a Sony (as we know it at least) at all. After all is it a real big surprise that a $600 console isn't doing too well or that the 360 is selling at a slower rate than the orginal X Box.

 

At least Nintnedo has managed to keep R&D, manufacturing, and game design costs under control and I think this generation will be quite good for Nintendo if only for that reason alone and hopefully the rest of the industry takes notice.

[jbanes]

Trameil didn't cause the Crash, he just was the one who picked up Atari (the home division) after the Crash, Warner was who led Atari into the crash.

I didn't say he caused the crash, I said he lit the fuse. And he did. With a massive computer price war between Commodore and TI which tore the industry to shreds. The precarious position of the game consoles (due to oversupply and bad software) came toppling down, and no one had the reserves to hang on.

 

To say the factors that could cause a crash are no longer present is quite false. With the R&D costs and manufacturing of consoles skyrocketing and the cost of making games skyrocketing it's gotten to the point where games have to be blockbusters to break even and consoles have to be huge sellers to break even.

No, they don't. Nintendo shows day in and day out that games don't have to cost a fortune to make a fortune. The only thing that costs a fortune is this desire to push the technology farther than the market will support. Remember the CD console wars? Not a single one dethroned the Super Nintendo. I mean, it was the friggin' Super Nintendo and yet all the Amiga CD32s, Phillips CD-i's, Atari Jaguars, and 3DOs of the world were powerless against it. It wasn't until the Playstation showed up that the CD system took off.

 

What sealed the success of the Playstation? The 1995 E3 when the Sony rep walked up to the mic and said, "$299".

 

If you'll excuse me for glossing over some the intricasies, that price point made the Playstation one of the most affordable CD systems of its day. Especially in comparison to the expected competitor (Sega Saturn at $399) who committed hara-kiri with their 6 month early launch.

 

Microsoft lost $4 billion on the X Box and that sold over 24 million consoles.

Don't look at Microsoft for any real indication of the industry. Microsoft has a LOT of money behind them, and they're trying to use it to buy out the marketplace. That didn't work the first time around, so this time they're competing much harder. (Against Sony.) The third time is usually considered the charm with Microsoft, which is why it's key that Nintendo continue to disrupt the marketplace if they intend to survive Microsoft's domination attempts.

 

I think it was only last year that Sony started to make a profit on the PS2 due to high R&D and manufacturing costs, if the PS2 had "only" sold about 30 million or so Sony would have likely experienced similar losses that Microsoft did.

And yet, Nintendo "only" sold ~22 million GameCubes and walked away with a profit.

 

After all is it a real big surprise that a $600 console isn't doing too well or that the 360 is selling at a slower rate than the orginal X Box.

No, it's not a surprise. Which is why Sony is currently propping itself up with PS2 sales. As I said, should a mythical recession occur, Sony would probably fall back on the PS2. Especially since they have yet to discontinue it. (As Nintendo has done with the GameCube.)

 

At least Nintnedo has managed to keep R&D, manufacturing, and game design costs under control and I think this generation will be quite good for Nintendo if only for that reason alone and hopefully the rest of the industry takes notice.

FWIW, Sony actually pioneered the low-cost market that Nintendo is now attacking. With the original Playstation, they showed that it was possible to mix budget titles in with the more expensive AAA titles. That's part of what made it so much more appealing than the N64. N64 games were a minimum of $50 due to high manufacturing costs. Playstation games were nearly pure profit, even at $20 a disc.

[AtariJr]

 

No, it's not a surprise. Which is why Sony is currently propping itself up with PS2 sales. As I said, should a mythical recession occur, Sony would probably fall back on the PS2. Especially since they have yet to discontinue it. (As Nintendo has done with the GameCube.)

 

At least Nintnedo has managed to keep R&D, manufacturing, and game design costs under control and I think this generation will be quite good for Nintendo if only for that reason alone and hopefully the rest of the industry takes notice.

FWIW, Sony actually pioneered the low-cost market that Nintendo is now attacking. With the original Playstation, they showed that it was possible to mix budget titles in with the more expensive AAA titles. That's part of what made it so much more appealing than the N64. N64 games were a minimum of $50 due to high manufacturing costs. Playstation games were nearly pure profit, even at $20 a disc.

 

i think he meant that nintendo as of the last couple generations nintendo has been doing that, while playstation starting with the psp has not. hes saying that nintendo is making the other two companies notice that a lower price and more profitable games for 3rd parties make more money in the end than elite systems that take a lot of money to develop for. i think that if they were smart they woudl have saw this with the ds and psp, and every other system war that was similar to this.. but hey, i guess idiots manage to make history repeat.

 

you can learn in a basic marketing class that a company that is doing what msoft and sony are doing with thier systems is limiting thier demographic and target adience with the price tag alone. thus making sales slower to come in , making less profit. the problem with this over the long run, is that youll either have a semi successful system like the neo geo.. that doesnt do well or bad, just is for a small audience. or a philips, which targets very few, making 3rd parties start to jump to other platforms , sufficating the system with a lack of software (saturn for instance).

 

i understand the "need" to drive the horsepower of these machines, but at the prices that they are... sorry , no. its sad to think that if the ps3 didnt had the god forsaken blue ray in it, they could probably sell it for 299, making it well within people's price range.

Edited April 11, 2007 by AtariJr

[moycon]

I'm sure at one point the Recording industry would have laughed at the idea that they would experience a crash too, Moycon.

 

Guess what...

 

A crash is a relative thing, and the bigger you are, the more billions you lose.

 

Tell ya what, I'll revive this thread...in what? Say a year, two years?...and we'll see if there's been a crash. Fair enough?

[Shawn]

 

The same Papermario with a different controller.

The same Mario64 with a different controller.

The same Mario Golf with a different controller.

The same Mario Kart with a different controller.

The same Mario Tennis with a different controller.

The same Zelda with a different controller.

The same Animal Crossing with a different controller.

The same Star Fox with a different controller.

 

 

 

Boy is it easy to tell you have never played even one of these games with a statment like that. Total BULLSHIT comment, nothing more, nothing less.

[Bivotar]

 

The same Papermario with a different controller.

The same Mario64 with a different controller.

The same Mario Golf with a different controller.

The same Mario Kart with a different controller.

The same Mario Tennis with a different controller.

The same Zelda with a different controller.

The same Animal Crossing with a different controller.

The same Star Fox with a different controller.

 

 

 

Boy is it easy to tell you have never played even one of these games with a statment like that. Total BULLSHIT comment, nothing more, nothing less.

 

Mario Tennis is coming for the Wii? Sign me up!

[Atarifever]

 

The same Papermario with a different controller.

The same Mario64 with a different controller.

The same Mario Golf with a different controller.

The same Mario Kart with a different controller.

The same Mario Tennis with a different controller.

The same Zelda with a different controller.

The same Animal Crossing with a different controller.

The same Star Fox with a different controller.

 

 

 

Boy is it easy to tell you have never played even one of these games with a statment like that. Total BULLSHIT comment, nothing more, nothing less.

What I find odd about the comment, and maybe I'm misreading it, is the fact that it seems to rest on the idea that Nintendo makes a lot of sequels. Let's look at, say, Mario Kart

One on SNES

One on Gamecube

One on N64

One on GBA

One on DS

Wow, one on each piece of hardware over 15 years, talk about overdoing it!

 

What about Metroid:

1 on NES

1 on Gameboy

1 on SNES

Skip the gameboy colour and N64 entirely

2 on GBA

2 on Gamecube

1 on DS

That's 8 in about 20 years.

 

Let's look at Smash Bros:

1 on N64

1 on Gamecube

 

2 games in 8 years.

 

 

Now, GTA has had something like 9 games (console and otherwise) in as many years. Meanwhile, Splinter Cell has had 4 console outings, and four or five handheld outings in 5 years. Yeah, that Nintendo, always overdoing the sequels.

 

I can handle one sequel every hardware generation or so, thanks. And I of course realize Nintendo has some exceptions, like Mario Party.

[Paranoid]

You know, I don't think it is really an accurate or fair comparable, though.

 

The GTA series are like small movies, with intricate plots. It isn't like putting lips on Pac Man, or a beanie with a propeller, changing the maze around a bit, but otherwise having the same basic game...

 

It isn't even like putting a spin on the same basic characters... for example, making the former antagonist the protagonist, or making his son the hero... or allowing you to play the role of the formerly captive princess.

 

It is *more* like an FRP... so maybe Zelda... but it is so much more evolved that there is only the barest of similarities. But I can see how an FRP franchise could support as much "volume" as something like the GTA series or some of the military FPSers that are based around "missions" between cut-scenes. You get through all the missions, but you're still into the basic engine... the next release is really more of a mission pack than a "sequel". I guess that boils down the difference too. Mario Kart is Mario Kart. Seen it once, on any one system, and you've got the basic idea. You might enhance it in some way or another... drive around a different track, different powerups, Donkey Kong rendered in Pixar quality CGI... even add some cut scenes... but it is STILL going to be Mario Kart.

 

GTA, each story so far has been a unique take on the criminal fiction genre. East coast mobster... Miami drug runner, Los Angles thug. You've got a lot of variety to cover in a military scenario game too. Pacific theater, European theater, Middle Eastern, South American... even highly ficitional stuff like warfare in the suburbs of America, if you want to go that far (which sounds interesting, and undone for a FPSer).

 

Now I admit, it is all about the individual gamers appetite for a particular genre. But I think GTA 5 compared to Leathal Weapon 5 makes more sense than "Another game that we've placed Donkey Kong franchise characters in for no real reason other than they seem to sell games for us".

[Paranoid]

Tell ya what, I'll revive this thread...in what? Say a year, two years?...and we'll see if there's been a crash. Fair enough?

 

Fair enough. Like I said, it is one possible scenario. I see interest in gaming waning. Maybe not interest, but excitement, at the very least.

 

There isn't a big franchise or title that creates the kind of excitement and buzz as something like Quake 2, Quake 3 Arena... even Doom 3.

 

I think Doom 3 might have been the nail in the coffin, actually. Completely immersive environmental graphics, around an engine and story line that made original Doom seem far more compelling. You got a perfect storm of apathy right around this point, really. The last Wolfenstien was a bomb... You can only play so many games made on the half-life engine... Call of Duty and Medal of Honor and the cinematic WW2 titles are carrying the day right now... there are some titles with buzz, but not like the used to. GTA Liberty City stories didn't have the same excitement... Then you've got the hugely expensive PS3 and X360 released, and the weird, quirky, and still *somewhat* expensive Wii...

 

The general trend, from my perspective... maybe not a crash. Maybe just a "recession". I bet you'll see a shakeout in software publishing, and maybe console manufacturing, too.

 

See you in a couple years.

[liveinabin]

Interest in gaming isn't waning at all. Maybe in what is currently considered 'the core' market. I guess people can only play so many FPS until they get sick of it all.

Now, if the market still relied on them, then yeah, I'd agree that we're in trouble.

Luckily it doesn't for one reason only.

I don't think it's even hyperbole to suggest that the DS has, to a great degree, saved gaming. It's opened up new markets, new genres and even if the big home systems just play copycat for the next few years, it's $$$ for everyone.

 

Oh yeah, usual caveat to add to a Nintendo statement - I'm not any kind of fanboy. I hate Mario/ Zelda/ Metroid and Nintendo as a company have largely been dicks for many years etc. Gotta hand it to them though, between the Wii and the DS, they've got something cooking.

[Paranoid]

You could be right. I do think the DS is driving a whole new core market that is emerging as an older, established core market seems to subside. I suppose that if this transition occurs smoothly, you might not even notice the departure of the first market with the maturity of the emerging one.

 

And the Wii does seem to be expanding on that basic formula.

 

So, how about this... the *traditional* gaming market faces the potential for a "crash" that could certainly claim those companies that are not changing to cater to a new, emerging market.

 

I'd agree with you on this, too, without being a Nintendo Fanboy... such a development would be bad news for both Microsoft and Sony, unless they start redefining themselves quickly, and could be a boon to the longterm success of Nintendo, for the foreseeable future.

 

Interesting perspective I hadn't really considered.

 

I think though that the often repeated (around here), lament, "I'm sick of FRPs and FPSers" does illustrate that there is a market that IS crashing. It just might be hidden by the development of a new one.

Edited April 11, 2007 by Paranoid

[ninjarabbit]

I don't think interest in waning at all but rather most people just don't feel like paying $400 or $600 for a game console and feel like paying $60 for basically the same game they've been playing for the past 5-10 years. Instead I think gamers are migrating towards the DS, Wii, PC, and cell phones. In fact I think the future of gaming will be mostly mobile with the DS (and its follow-up) and cell phones as they get more powerful, are able to handle more types of games, do those games better and because we're going to have over 90% market penetration with cell phones where as most consoles are lucky to get over 20% market penetration.

Edited April 12, 2007 by ninjarabbit

[+swlovinist]

It is hard to justify any game for $60....that game either better have some dam good gameplay, excellent multiplayer, or playthrough up the butt. With a chain game store on every street these days selling essentially Playstation and beyond, a new game better be something different. I agree with the DS and it total revival of creative gameplay. I also do think that the market is going portable. I think that there will always be a market for a game console, just not when it costs as much as a PC.

[moycon]

I don't think interest in waning at all but rather most people just don't feel like paying $400 or $600 for a game console and feel like paying $60 for basically the same game they've been playing for the past 5-10 years.

 

LOL Are people still trying to use the all 360 and PS3 games are $60!!!???? I don't get it, in spite of repeatedly throwing the facts in their face, many many people still believe this!!! Once again, games...good games at that, for the 360 (I can't speak for the PS3 because I don't have one yet) launch at under $59.99. Some of the more recent titles to launch under $59.99 (Look em up)

 

TMNT: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles

Virtua Tennis 3

Rapala Tournament Fishing

Dance Dance Revolution: Universe

Meet the Robinsons

Bullet Witch

Earth Defense 2017

Tetris Evolution

 

I do think I can see your point though ninjarabbit, It does kinda suck we are paying $49.99 for new Gamecube titles with tacked on controls (I got this term "tacked on controls" from a Paper Mario review, and we all know exactly what the term means.) . I definately rather have a true next gen game for that kinda $$$ instead. I suspect soon all the games that were going to be released for the Gamecube will be released on the Wii and we can be over and done with them. But for now.....

 

In any case, These companies will definetly have to consider what works and what doesnt work for the consumer to keep from going broke, but I still don;t see a crash on the horizon anymore than I did 10 years ago when folks were saying there would be a crash any day now.