Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by GlenHaag, Nov 1, 2002.
It's an interesting read. Hopefully they follow up on it.
From the article:
I wouldn't put it past Nintendo to start releasing titles on other platforms, though, like they did in the past with earlier games. I still have a copy of Mario Bros. for Atari 2600.
Well, Nintendo didn't release that - they licensed the title (along with "Donkey Kong" and "Donkey Kong Junior") to Atari before they made their entry into the US console market. Indeed, at one point they tried to interest Atari in marketing the Famicom (NES) in the US. It's worth noting, that when Atari dusted off the 2600 and 7800 and rebuilt the 65XE computer as a game system in resonse to the NES and Sega Master System a few years later, those three games were among the ones they pushed, but no further Nintendo games were released for the systems - and in fact, the DK & DKjr games for the 2600 were just relabeled versions of the original Coleco adaptations (Coleco originally had console rights to DK & DKjr, Atari got home computer rights, and Atari got all console rights to Mario Bros. and the others later). Just goes to how weird the gaming business is, though - back then, I never would have pegged Nintendo as a major player (they had, what, the Donkey Kong games and Popeye?) or foresaw Atari becoming little more than a brand name, and a minor one at that - as much as it's nice to see the Atari label on games in stores, it's not on games I'd associate with my mental image of Atari.
Rumor has it that a GBA2 (not a new GBA, but rather a new model of it with slightly expanded capabilities, like a second version) could be out soon with a new design (the description I read was really weird) and even a backlight. Not sure if it's true, but it sounded cool. The thing that this speech really shows me is how different all 3 companies' strategies are. Sony is going into the gaming business by treating it like a business. They get exclusive games that people can't live without in order to boost sales or try to make games like that themselves. Nintendo takes their games like Mario/Zelda/Metroid/etc. and not only makes newer versions of them, but isn't afraid to change the formula that each game uses in order to make new, unique experiences. They also offer stuff nobody else can, like the GBA/GCN connectivity. Microsoft, however, is trying to do something that I don't quite understand. They have great hardware, a few great games, a bunch of ok games, and yet they have no real strategy beyond saying how cool their console is and how kiddie the GameCube is (calling it a purple purse and such) and how old the PS2 is. They would rather focus on the image of their console than the games that it has. Apparently, it's been working pretty well in America.
I think nintendos next console should have a slot on the front or on the controller that is the size of a GBA cartridge slot, so that it is backwards compatable with the portable games, but playable on a TV. Or maybe Nintendo could make an add on like the Super Game Boy, but would connect to one of the slots on the bottom of the system. Kinda like a little stand for the whole system, with the slot on the front.
Actually Morgan, I think MS big strategy this holiday season is to push the hell out of Xbox Live! as a must-have killer app. They'll undoubtedly push single-player hits as well, but they don't have any blockbusters in that category (as far as public image goes). Nintendo is simply banking on their blockbusters and nothing else.
Well, the bundle worked on me, I picked one last week along with Halo -- to add to my existing Cube and PS2. I've got to admit, though, after finishing Halo I'm having a tough time finding something else to play. Live intrigues me, but it's pretty pointless as I have no access to broadband in my area. Hopefully, Splinter Cell will be a grand slam, but I'm not hopeful as it's being developed for the PC as well.
delete double post
Frankly I think pushing a Live!-style service of any sort is asking for trouble if it's your main feature. While I am very fond of on-line gaming, and I think that MS is definitely very, very smart to be pushing it hard, the problem is the people. I'm very down on on-line play because responsible players are simply far and few between. Sure the answer is to find groups such as an HTF group, etc, but not everybody knows to do that or has those options. That whole MotoGP thing? When JoeAverageGamer (not the hardcore types) goes into his first game and is beseiged by the rude and snotty teenage crowd who care less about having fun than wrecking somebody elses and has a hideous play experience, where does that leave them? They're going to be livid, especially if they don't have a variety of off-line games to choose from. Not to mention potential alienation of your demographic who doesn't have/want broadband. I think pushing on-line hard but not having a lot to back people up if on-line's not to their liking is just not a good plan. That being said, I don't think Nintendo's plan of just letting on-line build itself and maybe we'll support it sometime soon is all that great either. Of the three companies, the PS2 is probably working the best strategy: have a ton of good non-line softs and accessible (hardware shortage notwithstanding) on-line play for those who want it. If you could merge the two and have Nintendo's first party and second party softs with MicroSoft's on-line package, you'd probably have the most unbeatable system of gaming in years. Hmm, X-Cube does have a certain ring to it...
Don't forget Steel Batallion.
As for Nintendo going software only, I see no HUGE problem with that. They basically hire electronics giants to create the system for them while MS and Sony have an actual hand in its production/design with the necessary experience. The only thing I can't imagine is Mario on a system other than Nintnedo's. It would be weird but we'd all eventually adjust.
I seem to remember some other console doing this in the 90s, its kinda fuzzy but I think they had the weirdest H-shaped controller at the time with what looked to be the D-pad from hell. And their console was a grey-ish color....man and they had this slogin that was cryptic, urnote, and the e was red and it took me forever to figure it out that it said, You Are Not Ready.....man can't remember that console at all, wonder if it ever succeded???? A console doesn't need games to sell well, Just look at the first year of the PS2! Drought city, much worse then the Xbox IMHO. Microsoft is still selling to the hardcore and that is who will pick up Xbox Live first, and don't let anyone tell you differently, Xbox Live will be huge BANK for MS. Just imagine if just 2 Million Xbox US users pay the rumored subscription fee of $10 a month starting next November, that comes out to be $20,000,000USD a month in revenue. And we all know more then 2 Million people will be playing Xbox Live. Nintendo will always sell just enough consoles to get by, because everyone and their dog wants to play the latest Mario, Zelda, Metroid, etc. Sony will be Sony, they will continue to rule the mindless masses.
So are you being serious Camp???