I didn't hear Nintendo whining when NEC and Sega put out more powerful hardware 3 years into the NES's life cycle or when Sega and Sony put out more powerful hardware 4 years after the SNES came out. There were no comlaints of industry accelleration back then because Nintendo was at the top of their game and didn't need to blame someone else for their troubles like they do now.

What I don't understand is why Microsoft is the scapegoat. It's not like Sony would have waited until Nintendo was ready to lauch their next system. We're actually about due for new generation of consoles seeing as how this generation started with Dreamcast in 1999 and continued with PS2 in 2000. I don't see what the fuss is about.

I'm amazed that Gosen apparently has no knowledge of (or is choosing to ignore) the Gameboy during his rant. Let's see, Nintendo is aiming to release the Gameboy DS in the US late this year. That couldn't be however, because the Gameboy Advance was released a mere three years ago in 2001, and the Gameboy Advance SP was released in 2003. The funny thing about this is I could have sworn I just read a rant from a Nintendo exec complaining about 5-6 year console cycles? Or is it only fair to complain when you don't currently dominate the market in question?

Perhaps Gosen would prefer if home consoles, and the Gamecube in particular, would have a life cycle similar to handheld consoles like the Gameboy? This way Nintendo could release a new version of the Gamecube every few years without actually releasing a new generation of hardware.

The Gameboy Pocket had a better screen than the Gameboy, then the Gameboy Color added color. In both cases, if you wanted the new feature you had to buy the same basic system once again. Then Nintendo had the Gameboy Advance, a new generation of hardware, and if you wanted to actually be able to see the screen, you got to re-buy the newest version, the Gameboy Advance SP.

It's been 15 years, and Nintendo has released 5 designs (Gameboy, Gameboy Pocket, Gameboy Color, Gameboy Advance, Gameboy Advance SP) of 2 actual hardware generations (Gameboy, Gameboy Advance). Each new design they get to charge full price for, while reusing the same basic technology they've had for years (with the exception of the move from Gameboy Color to Gameboy Advance). This cuts back on R&D costs. Compare this to the 5 home systems they've released in this time frame (NES, SNES, Virtual Boy, N64, and Gamecube), all of which have been completely new hardware generations.

As a side note, I have both the Gameboy Color and Gameboy Advance, and I've played all the remaining Gameboy models over the years, so I do have hands on experience with my personal rant.

This comment was edited on Jun 9, 19:06.

How many titles are done for both pc and x-box.

About the same if not less then ones for ps2 and pc.

i was so displeased since the ps1 by the amount of shit that can come up on consoles that i do not buy consoles.

Are you kidding me? Pcs have 100 times more peice of shit games then consoles. Tons of peice of shit clones from east europe, tons of value games that look like they could be ported to the super nintendo etc.

You know, games take more time and money to build, good titles dont comme out until a good year or so has been spent on it, some titles even take 2 to 3 years to develop. Then if a console lifespan is lower than 5 years, we will not see much more than clones of games that are boring as shit. It's true that Nintendo may have fallen a bit behind, but Microsoft isn't helping in some ways. The Strenght of Microsoft though lies in its dev kits wich are all directx based. That gives them a full head start not only in hardware but in software. How many titles are done for both pc and x-box. I think that what other console makers need is some really good dev-kits. As for games, i was so displeased since the ps1 by the amount of shit that can come up on consoles that i do not buy consoles. And since they are going to be new ones each 3-4 years, what the heck, better upgrade the cpu and vid-card on my pc. Personnally i really missed old games wich the fun factor was more important than the techno-wiz-graphics-from-outer-space. Not that i dislike a good looking game, but more time is taken to devlop stunning graphic games wich a ultimately boring...

He went on to argue that it was in the power of the industry "to avoid artificially triggering a new generation before we are ready to deliver it."

That isn't a thing to say - hey let the pc overtake consoles again - the argument is, we have a monopoly (or strictly cartel) and can decide when we release stuff, this is in the interest of the industry as a whole.

It is of course entirely not in the interest of the consumer.

I will be surprised if nintendo lasts past the next nintendo console. They are the dinosaurs of the videogame industry, too busy making games like they did for the snes to realize why sony completely rapes them and microsoft will likely easily rape them next round. I almost never see non nintendo developed gamecube games on the top 10, for any months. Wonder how long that will last.

Bit of a rant, non?

"Grand Theft Auto, ultimately, is a dead end street," he told the summit, saying that "as a businessperson, I don't relish the role of defending our business from charges of gratuitous violence."

Yup it is gratuitous violence, which is precisely why it is not a dead end street.

He accused the industry of paying too much attention to a narrow demographic of consumers who have grown up with videogames and are now in their thirties, and failing to appeal beyond those boundaries

I'd accuse Nintendo of paying too much attention to the demographic of consumers who are under 12, and failing to appeal beyond those boundaries.

I like your point Cutedge. Nintendo's brand awareness is ingrained into most gamers childhoods. Why they are cutting me loose now is beyond me.

Bulfrog also raises a good point. The teething problems at the start of a consoles life always produce a spike in shitty games so speeding up the cycle isn't necessarily a good thing. I think Microsoft will continue to release consoles faster and faster until they have market dominance.

This comment was edited on Jun 9, 14:15.

He accused the industry of paying too much attention to a narrow demographic of consumers who have grown up with videogames and are now in their thirties, and failing to appeal beyond those boundaries

This, right there, is why Nintendo is having so many problems right now. Now, I dig Nintendo. I have a gamecube, but their resistance to making games for people who have grown up with their consoles is going to be their demise.

If they had hardware ready to go right now, you can bet they'd be launching it

His concern is not for the next generation hardware ("While he admitted that it was too late to change this cycle this time around..."), but for future generations. It'd be my guess that Nintendo doesn't want to spend the money necessary to keep up on the hardware side. And their past products show that.

The entire article is full of crap though... it's typical marketing speak from someone who is so wrapped up in their own product that they're blind to how consumers think.

Here are some choice quotes:

quoting a statistic which showed that 33 per cent of GameCube purchasers last Christmas already owned a PS2 or Xbox

And how many new purchases of a PS2 or Xbox already owned a GameCube? I'd bet a lot. How much do you think the price cut figured into that decision? And why, praytell, wasn't your console the first one bought instead of the second or third?

"Every free game is taking away hours that could be spent playing games they had actually paid for - imagine that!"

Horror. Shock. Of course, without those free games the consumer may be spending time never buying your product. Some game bundles are crap, and most consumers won't be lured in by that. Bundle decent games and you're likely to increase sales, because the games represent added value. If they weren't added value then your customers wouldn't be spending time playing them.

Oh, and if they are bundling in crap games, then maybe you should review your own developer licensing and figure out why you're allowing crap to exist in the first place.

He went on to argue that it was in the power of the industry "to avoid artificially triggering a new generation before we are ready to deliver it."

Hey, that's fine by me. It'll just increase the technology gap between consoles and PCs. Won't change the essentials of what gameplay works better on what system, but developers can be just as tempted by shiny baubles as consumers can.

although I agree somewhat, think of it this way:

a console comes out and several games get produced for it. it takes a while for average joe gamer to get past some of the shit clone games that get shoved down his throat. In fact, it takes awhile for game developers to actually learn the technical intricacies of the console and produce *good* games (compare some of the games out now for the PS2 to what was originally put out for it). Before your average gamer can get to what we might call a *good* game, the industry has moved on to the next gen of hardware. In essence, speeding up the generational switch (something Gosen points out that MS is doing) has the side effect of causing there to be a higher shit:non-shit ratio.

Agreed, and I'm a Nintendo fan. If they had hardware ready to go right now, you can bet they'd be launching it. But they don't...

And an 8 meg Memory Card? WHOO? The PS2 has had those since it launched, hasn't it?

Welcome to 1999, Nintendo...

People look so snooty, Take pills make them moody, Automatic bzooty, Zero to tutti fruitti, Sex in the halls, Niagra Falls, Local shopping malls receive Anonymous calls

Gosen's speech can be boiled down to: Our console sucks, is selling badly and Microsoft is a meanie.