Beuli2 said:
Reported fro excessive trolling! Now you' re doomed! |
The correct term is "domed". Reported!
jarrod said:
The correct term is "domed". Reported! |
Do you want to bet?
Above: still the best game of the year.
jarrod said:
Well, I'm not saying first to market wins (that's almost never happened). I'm saying launching last hurts when you're the established market leader... giving your opponent an opening always leaves you fundamentally vulnerable. Sega (MD), Sony (PS) and Microsoft (360) have all capitalized on that to great effect historically. Why do you think Nintendo rushed DS to market? I tend to agree 2011 may be out at this point though, spring-summer 2012 is looking like the new sweet spot (for Japan at least, they could wait until fall for the west). Get the jump on MS/Sony and build up an unsurmountable install base lead (like PS2), temp over current 360/PS3 devs early on with a slightly higher spec chipset (like 3DS) aaunch their own next gend by building a strong marketplace they'll simultaneously put pressure on MS & Sony to both ln systems (due to shareholders and press expecting it) and not launch their next gen (due to developers, publishers and retail enjoying the 360/PS3/Wii2 multiplatform marketplace). |
The only time the bold is true is for Sony, and that is because Sony has to. They rely so heavily on third parties that they will always lose if the launch later than someone else. Of course, The SNES's problem wasn't launch time but software. Sega couldn't compete until Sonic.
I disagree with the second part. If Nintendo was planning to do all that, why not just keep supporting the Wii. There is no reason to launch a new console if there is not content that couldn't be done on the current system. Software defines consoles. Nintendo needs to keep following their mission of to expand gaming. That should be the top priority with any system launch. Of course, they are making the 3DS, a system which I think adds nothing except pretty graphics.
jarrod said:
Iwata's smart enough to know how EAD works, and that they should move on from Wii now anyway. And I don't mean just the Zelda team (EAD3), I mean EAD at large. They almost always come in strong early on to establish platforms, but they phase out pretty quickly too, usually the only have one or two projects past year 4-5 on a system. Looking at their gameography, it's pretty easy to see EAD's already moving on from Wii most likely...
NES (1983) includes FDS (1986)
Super NES (1990)
Nintendo 64 (1996) includes 64DD (1999)
GameCube (2001)
Nintendo DS (2004) includes DSiWare (2008)
Wii (2006)
Nintendo 3DS (2011)
As for launching early, the only example of a market leader doing that I can think of is PS2, and it enjoyed universal market dominance to a degree almost unseen previously. SNES, N64 and PS3 all launched alongside or after their core competitors, and they all suffered for it. No market leader has ever launched early though, and performed worse as a result... Nintendo's best window really is end of 2011/early 2012, especially if they plan to do just a single "generational leap" in chipset spec.
|
But the Dreamcast launched before the PS2, marking the start of the 128-bit generation.
Nintendo fans will always have something to talk about even if thers nothing to talk about. remeber how great the 64 was. good times good times.
| Smashchu2 said: The only time the bold is true is for Sony, and that is because Sony has to. They rely so heavily on third parties that they will always lose if the launch later than someone else. Of course, The SNES's problem wasn't launch time but software. Sega couldn't compete until Sonic. I disagree with the second part. If Nintendo was planning to do all that, why not just keep supporting the Wii. There is no reason to launch a new console if there is not content that couldn't be done on the current system. Software defines consoles. Nintendo needs to keep following their mission of to expand gaming. That should be the top priority with any system launch. Of course, they are making the 3DS, a system which I think adds nothing except pretty graphics. |
No, launching SNES and N64 so late did hurt Nintendo generally, and it did also allow Sega and Sony to gain traction with developers, publishers, media and the market. It wasn't the only factor contributing to that, or even the main one really (at least in N64's case... hello carts!), but it had an impact. And had SNES/N64 launched alongside MD/PS, there's a good chance things would've turned out somewhat differently as a result (MD would've been an obvious non-starter, PS likely would've faced a much more uphill climb).
As for the 2nd part, uh, did you look at the EAD list I just posted? Pretty sure EAD is cooking up stuff right now that's beyond Wii's thresholds... software does define Nintendo's consoles, but that definitive software comes mainly from EAD and it's crystal clear EAD's pretty much done with Wii already. They'll finish up whatever projects they have too far along to transition (Zelda, maybe Pikmin) and spend a year or two on 3DS in the interim, but you can bet they'll have Wii 2 stuff ready for 2012...
|
Declan said: But the Dreamcast launched before the PS2, marking the start of the 128-bit generation.
|
Dreamcast was a non-issue, PS2 steamrolled it on hype alone (it certainly wasn't the games, lol). It's really more a weird "in between" system though (think along the lines of PC Engine, 3DO or N-Gage), sadly it was competing more actively with PS1 and N64 than it was PS2.
PS2's core competitors were GC and Xbox, and had it not been allowed to have 1.5 year on them, and built up an insurmountable 20m unit lead over the period, last gen might've looked more like this gen in terms of marketshare (though flip Nintendo and Sony). Launching first can be a BIG advantage for a market leader.
are you taking the piss? 128bit PS2? LOL The PS2 processor could handle 4 32bit values but not 1 single 128bit value so it is a 32bit processor with the abilty to handle 4 32bit values at the same time which IS NOT 128bit!! Same with the Dreamcast it had a 32bit CPU capable of doing the same, except it had a 128bit PowerVR on it. You must succumb to the advertising idiots to claim any of these were 128 bit!
jarrod said:
No, launching SNES and N64 so late did hurt Nintendo generally, and it did also allow Sega and Sony to gain traction with developers, publishers, media and the market. It wasn't the only factor contributing to that, or even the main one really (at least in N64's case... hello carts!), but it had an impact. And had SNES/N64 launched alongside MD/PS, there's a good chance things would've turned out somewhat differently as a result (MD would've been an obvious non-starter, PS likely would've faced a much more uphill climb). As for the 2nd part, uh, did you look at the EAD list I just posted? Pretty sure EAD is cooking up stuff right now that's beyond Wii's thresholds... software does define Nintendo's consoles, but that definitive software comes mainly from EAD and it's crystal clear EAD's pretty much done with Wii already. They'll finish up whatever projects they have too far along to transition (Zelda, maybe Pikmin) and spend a year or two on 3DS in the interim, but you can bet they'll have Wii 2 stuff ready for 2012... |
I tbhink it's not true about launch times. If Nintendo had launched first, they would still have to rely primarily on their own software. At every turn, third parties have tried to leave Nintendo. They jumped on with Sega, but since Nintendo and Sega were similar in their policies, they became indifferent. Sony has very lax policies, so they were very willing to work with them. Not to mention that Nintendo's software is amazing. In their eyes, they have to compete with Nintendo. Third parties will always try to side with anyone besides Nintendo. Launching first is really all about thrid party support. This is why Sony always has to launch first. If they don't, they wont get enough support to hold their own. Nintendo can launch whenever, because third parties will always try to jump ship.
The reason the Gamecube and N64 didn't work is because Nintendo abandoned their roots. If there was a 2D Mario on either system, it may not have gone Sony's way. The Wii is doing well thanks to it's software. In the N64 and Gamecube eras, their software didn't shine as well. They were no different that third parties. This is why Sega later became one. What is hurting the Wii now is Gamecube plus titles like Mario Galaxy and Other M.
The second part I agree with. I expect Nintendo to announce the Wii 2 in 2012 and to release it either late 2012 or early 2013 depending on what the competition does.
Nintendo will release a new console late 2012 at the very earliest. Wii is following a similar trajectory to the PS2 (in fact is currently ahead of its sales curve) which had a 6 year life (as in 6 years before the PS3 was released) so I think Nintendo will follow a similar path.
2011 will be taken up by the 3DS, as well as a few big things for Wii like Zelda, and Nintendo isn't going to want another hardware release to crowd their lineup and deticate more funds. E3 2011 will be packed with 3DS info and demos, and possibly a teaser of the next Nintendo console.
2011 also holds more potential life for the Wii with games like Pikmin 3, Zelda, Last Story, Xenoblade, DQX, and the Vitality Sensor/Wii Relax. The console is also still only $50 cheaper then its original price, and Nintendo still has at least $100 in price cuts to use should the Wii begin to lose steam. There is really no reason for Nintendo to release a new console next year, especially when they already have a new handheld coming.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2025 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
