N5

[2097]

Ive been reading up on how nintendo want to get their console out in 2005 before anyone else gets there next gen machine out but i dont get why they want to do this?

Like the dreamcast came out before any of the other machines and that wasnt really a resounding sucess for sega was it?? Sony wouldve won whenever their machine came out and possibly the Xbox and Gamecube did better because sony had created interest in the next generation of consoles for them..

like if nintendo get their console out first, it will probably do okay, then sony and microsofts next lot will come out and be technically superior and crush the nintendo one? meaning for the rest of that generation nintendo would be stuck with having the least impressive console and loose the one of the reasons why people bought the GC/N64 over their rivals.

It will mean the GC would only have a three year lifespan, because they would start developing games for the N5, GC software suppport would probably dry up from this christmas.. which defeats the object of buying a GC now, which is stupid considering when a big game comes out and when they actually promote the console it sells really well. Releasing a new console wouldnt create an advantage, just help them loose both hardware generations in one go? or am i just being silly??

[Baroque]

Where this idea that Ninty want's to "first" has come from I don't know, and yes I have seen it around a few places now, but from what I've read Nintendo don't intend to be out first, but do intend to be out in the same time frame as the PS3 and the XBox II.

Nintendo have yet to release a console on time, so until I see it I'm writing it all off as the usual babble.

[nips]

The PS2 was out for so long before the XB and GC it was able to establish a huge market share with litle competition. MSFT and Nintendo do not want to give Sony a head start next time and hope to release their products at a similar time as the others.

Whether this will make a difference - I don't know. But I'm not sure whether Nintendo want to get thier machine out first necessarily, just sooner rather than later. They don't want to make the same mistake they made with the N64!

But, Nintendo wouldn't want to give the GC a very small lifespan, so they could still continue to develop for the GC once their new console is out anyway. Even backwards compatiblity...

But, remember, just because a console is out first doesn't mean that it will be technically inferior...

[Stroker Ace]

NES comes out before Master System/Mk III in Japan and America - NES wins.

Master System beats NES out in various European markets - Master System Wins.

Genesis/Mega Drive comes out before SNES in the West - Genesis wins (although over the long term, it balances out)

Playstation comes out before N64 - Playstation wins.

Playstation 2 comes out before GC and XBox - PS2 wins.


Those are just a few examples. The Saturn and Dreamcast are exceptions to the rule. The Saturn failed because of a whole host of reasons, not least because Sega had ****ed up every recent release (Sega CD, 32X, etc), the marketing was piss poor and the console was very expensive.

The Dreamcast came out so early that it was considered by many to be a rival to the PS and N64, rather than the PS2 and GC. Plus, it carried the dread name of Sega on the box - People weren't interested, proving once again that the masses are asses.

Generally, though - The first out of the gate wins. Unless it's made by Sega, in which case it's screwed.



In the case of the N5 - If it's not backwardly compatible, I'm going to be grandly pissed off. With such a short lifespan for the GC, it's going to need to have support for the older games, or else people are going to rebel against Nintendo.

[snowman]

hmmmmmmm----

Well here's how I view it...

Ninty at the mo... Are image wise less than cool etc... They have aprox 2-3 years to improve this image... This could be done like sony did... Night clubs,raves extreme sports...

If they did something like that in 2-3 years they could be branded as cool... It wouldn;t take much effort... Cause TBH, they are like the class geek at the moment waiting for his balls to drop.

such as the geek who's ball's have not droped. They need to mature not in terms of there games. But in terms of advertisement.
How about NINTY get on the right side of FHM,MAX POWER AND ANY OF THE OTHER POPULAR LATE TEEN/ EARLY 20'S MAG'S...

**** there cudly image the industry is a whole diffrent game...

[Grey Area]

The snowmans right. Nintendo have never really been cool enough, and i dont reckon they've got the balls to alienate their existing userbase and sex up their image...not this time round anyway.

When they eventually join with Sega and troubleshoot their marketting department they may come up with something to destroy Sony.

[nips]

The last two posts make too many references to balls!






Anyway, I disagree that Nintendo has never been cool. Mario was cool 15 years ago... but times have changed and violence is cool which Nintendo are not really offering.

But, do we really want Nintendo to alienate their existing userbase? Do we really need 'Sony-lite'. Nintendo are making loadsa money now, why change it?

I think that they need to sort out Nintendo Europe, as do most here, but other than that I really don't think they need do much more to satisfy everyone than grab some killer IP, make some stunning first and second party games and secure loads of great thrd party games like they have been doing.

Why do you think that Nintendo would join with Sega Greay Area? Why do they need to destroy Sony? Strong competition is enough! A niche console satisfies me. I don't give a flying **** if billy 12 year-old can't play GTA, that's what the Playstation 2 is there for. Why make a Playstation 2.1?

[Grey Area]

The last two posts make too many references to balls!






Anyway, I disagree that Nintendo has never been cool. Mario was cool 15 years ago... but times have changed and violence is cool which Nintendo are not really offering.

But, do we really want Nintendo to alienate their existing userbase? Do we really need 'Sony-lite'. Nintendo are making loadsa money now, why change it?

I think that they need to sort out Nintendo Europe, as do most here, but other than that I really don't think they need do much more to satisfy everyone than grab some killer IP, make some stunning first and second party games and secure loads of great thrd party games like they have been doing.

Why do you think that Nintendo would join with Sega Greay Area? Why do they need to destroy Sony? Strong competition is enough! A niche console satisfies me. I don't give a flying **** if billy 12 year-old can't play GTA, that's what the Playstation 2 is there for. Why make a Playstation 2.1?

The Nintendo Sega merge is just a prophecy that i hope will come true.

I'm talking from a marketing point of view. You want your console to be the best and be number one which Nintendo isn't, so at the moment you must defeat Sony who rely on 'sex drugs and rock n roll' to sell their product. I'm not saying that Nintendo should go the same route as Sony, personally i would like a more innocent brand to be popular for everyone, but they need something to put them ahead which at the moment they haven't got. Yes Mario was cool 15 years ago but one franchise does not make a 21st century gaming world sit up and notice for too long. Who's talking about Mario now? Games like Viewtiful need to be flogged to death in the public eye for any notice to be taken.

[nips]

Games like Viewtiful need to be flogged to death in the public eye for any notice to be taken.

But they don't, really.

Viewtiful Joe had, I am led to believe, an average advertising budget and sold out in it's first week on sale...

It doesn't need to be flogged to death as people will take notice of good games. Like in the PAL gaming discussion on the summer sales dip. People came out in their droves to buy a GC and Zelda. Some CEX bloke said they need more good games like that... [not necessarily a huge advertising budget...] Although, in all fairness, Zelda is a hugely recognisable IP...

[Grey Area]

Viewtiful Joe had, I am led to believe, an average advertising budget and sold out in it's first week on sale...

(...are we talking about Europe or The Rest of the World?)

Yes, it deserved to. Quality games should be bought. You say Viewtiful had an average budget; why didnt Nintendo put more of a budget on the advertising? Do they not have faith in their product? isn't exposure the main thing they need to get some significant recognition? Sony advertise pretty much anything that comes out (used to anyway). Thats how PS is a household name. Honestly, i can hardly recall any adverts for Nintendo whereas Sonys ads stick in the mind, because they're good or repeated more i don't know. But other manufacturers need to learn from this example; video gaming is now mainstream. If you dont spend the cash on advertising you're going to miss out on a significant part of the casual market.

[nips]

Viewtiful Joe had, I am led to believe, an average advertising budget and sold out in it's first week on sale...

(...are we talking about Europe or The Rest of the World?)

Yes, it deserved to. Quality games should be bought. You say Viewtiful had an average budget; why didnt Nintendo put more of a budget on the advertising? Do they not have faith in their product? isn't exposure the main thing they need to get some significant recognition?

The sales of Joe refer to Japan, which is what I assumed we were refering to as that is the place the Nintendo will launch thier new console first and would therefore be the most relevent to this conversation.

But, I think that you don't quite understand my point. For a start, Viewtiful Joe isn't a Nintendo game, it is a Capcom one. Therefore Capcom will be the ones footing the bill for advertising, not Nintendo.

But my point is that you don't need wall-to-wall adverts to sell games and get recognition. Viewtiful Joe didn't need to and that game sold out in it's first week of sales. And like the CEX bloke said, when good games are released for ther platform people will buy it.

This means that it is not always necessary to give huge advertising budgets to sell product. Good product can sell itself. Why give a huge budget to a game if it doesn't need it?

[Grey Area]

Yes i understand that a great game will sell itself and if you just want to sell the game then thats fine, but if youre trying to up your image and get noticed in many different places then perhaps the advertising needs to be expanded. Sony got this right with the PS, bloody machine was everywhere and therefore everyone heard about it wether they were into video games or not.

(Viewtiful is Capcom: My bad . But wouldnt Nintendo want to keep a keen eye on how games like this are advertised? it is their platform after all.)

[Ghost]

But my point is that you don't need wall-to-wall adverts to sell games and get recognition. Viewtiful Joe didn't need to and that game sold out in it's first week of sales. And like the CEX bloke said, when good games are released for ther platform people will buy it.

This means that it is not always necessary to give huge advertising budgets to sell product. Good product can sell itself. Why give a huge budget to a game if it doesn't need it?

Thats not always true, look at the DC that had amazing triple A software from the begining and that failed whereas the PS2 had next to nothing for the first year and look how that sold.

[nips]

This means that it is not always necessary to give huge advertising budgets to sell product. Good product can sell itself. Why give a huge budget to a game if it doesn't need it?

Thats not always true, look at the DC that had amazing triple A software from the begining and that failed whereas the PS2 had next to nothing for the first year and look how that sold.

The claim is that the GC needs more advertising isn't necessarily true as I've said earlier. But, like I said, it isn't always true, like with the DC and PS2!

[Ghost]

I'm talking from a marketing point of view. You want your console to be the best and be number one which Nintendo isn't, so at the moment you must defeat Sony who rely on 'sex drugs and rock n roll' to sell their product.

I am sorry but I find this quite sad. Nintendo is a company and their main goal is to make money which nintendo are making plenty of, nintendo do not need to be 'number one', as long as they make a profit and make more games then I will be happy. Look at Microsoft; they have spent huge amounts of money on advertising, spent stupid amounts of cash to buy exclusive content and studios (metal gear substance, rare etc) and their hardware is so expensive that they lose a lot of money for every console sold. Nintendo on the other hand make a profit from every console sold and because they have less third-party games than the other companies they almost always sell lotsof software on their system. Microsoft may have sold more consoles than nintendo but they have also lost more money.

Really this should be about the games which, in my opinion, nintendo make the best, not whether or not it is cool to own their machine because it is the better selling one.


phew! thats my little rant finished