Revolution ---> Wii ---> ???

[Flip]

http://www.qj.net/Another-name-change-f ... /aid/56097

Another name change for the Wii?!
Posted Jun 16, 2006 at 04:42AM by Remi M.

Listed in: Wii, Rumors
Tags: poll, target It wasn't too long ago when Nintendo Revolution was renamed Wii, but now, rumor has it that the Wii might be up for another round of name changing. Apparently, someone from Nintendo said that the negative reaction of the community and marketing strategies are the causes of the name change. Just when we were used to calling it Wii...sigh!

Someone over at the Nintendo Marketing Department also said that "we have received over 200,000 e-mails with complaints about the Wii, and the console name has been commonly associated with urine. We have been the target of many jokes, and we strongly believe that it's a bad thing for the company's reputation." Hey no company would want to associate their gaming console to human excrements right?

Plus, in a recent poll, they found that 62% of gamers think "Wii" sounds childish, and 49% said they wouldn't buy the console judging only by its name. You may be asking now what possible names are being considered. Names such as Nintendo GameZone, Nintendo FutureNation and Nintendo GlobalBOX have popped up. On the other hand, Nintendo denies this possible name change.

What do you think about this? Do you think that a name change will do wonders for the Wii, or do you think it's a bad idea? If given the chance, what possible names will you come up with? Let us know through your comments.

[Eric]

Umm yes, change the fucking name.

[Lox]

People need to get over it.

Pretty much every system that has ever existed has a ridiculous sounding name that everyone gets used to.

Are buyers so childish that they can't get past the freaking name? *sigh*

[Julius Seeker]

Since when are fan made weblogs considered reliable sources? =P

Their source: http://www.gamesforwii.net/news/another ... e-wii.html

At least if the guy was going to make up a rumour like this he should have been more creative. An unamed poll, a guy named Mike from Nintendo, and the name GlobalBox.

Not to mention that the title is incorrect: Wii is the only name the Console has ever had, Revolution was just a code name.

Here are some recent polls discussing the popularity of the Wii: http://www.gamefaqs.com/poll/index.html?poll=2408
http://www.joystiq.com/2006/05/26/japan ... endos-wii/

[Chris]

I can easily get past the name. but I still think it was a mistake to change the working title which is the best working title for any product outside of snakes on a plane.

This system is exactly what the old name was. it was revolutionary. it is in a way revolutionizing the way we play games. not only did revolution fit it sounded great and really was one of the catchier names since well nothing. it was a mistake to move away from what was an amazing name that would have been far easier to market than wii

[Eric]

Since when are fan made weblogs considered reliable sources? =P

Their source: http://www.gamesforwii.net/news/another ... e-wii.html

At least if the guy was going to make up a rumour like this he should have been more creative. An unamed poll, a guy named Mike from Nintendo, and the name GlobalBox.

Not to mention that the title is incorrect: Wii is the only name the Console has ever had, Revolution was just a code name.

Here are some recent polls discussing the popularity of the Wii: http://www.gamefaqs.com/poll/index.html?poll=2408
http://www.joystiq.com/2006/05/26/japan ... endos-wii/

Fuck polls.

[Don]

I'm not seeing how a name like Wii can possibly help a system. The best you can possibly argue is that it doesn't hurt the system but if all you can say about a name is 'well it doesn't hurt us, maybe' then maybe it's not a great name. It's one thing that most systems name don't sound too good when you first hear it but stuff like XBox, Playstation, and so on don't make people say 'whoa that name sucks' either.

[Julius Seeker]

Fuck polls.

The reason I posted these two polls were because the guy cited an unamed recent poll. Obviously his poll was bullshit. These ones are real.

[Julius Seeker]

I'm not seeing how a name like Wii can possibly help a system. The best you can possibly argue is that it doesn't hurt the system but if all you can say about a name is 'well it doesn't hurt us, maybe' then maybe it's not a great name. It's one thing that most systems name don't sound too good when you first hear it but stuff like XBox, Playstation, and so on don't make people say 'whoa that name sucks' either.

I quite remember people saying that the name Playstation was "the gayest thing ever" when I first got it (around its launch). A couple years later most of those people owned a Playstation.

Perhaps the unique name is partially the reason for the massive popularity of the system. It generated a lot of publicity before E3, and as a result, more people lined up to try out the Wii than had occured for any system in the history of the event.

[Don]

Perhaps the unique name is partially the reason for the massive popularity of the system. It generated a lot of publicity before E3, and as a result, more people lined up to try out the Wii than had occured for any system in the history of the event.

That's like saying Bush must be the greatest president because more people than ever voted for him in the 2004 election.

All kinds of #s records are being broken for gaming because more people than ever are playing games. That doesn't mean breaking records is bad, but it's not that meaningful, either.

[Julius Seeker]

That's like saying Bush must be the greatest president because more people than ever voted for him in the 2004 election.

All kinds of #s records are being broken for gaming because more people than ever are playing games. That doesn't mean breaking records is bad, but it's not that meaningful, either.

Considering that E3 (aside from two years in Atlanta) always has roughly 70K guests and is open to Industry professionals, guests, and press only, and the US elections are open to the general (and often uneducated) public, I am not sure how this comparison (between popularity of a videogame system and US federal elections) proves anything. All this is beside the point though. The point is that it is obvious that there is a lot more interest in the Wii right now than what that article leads to believe (which would lead one to believe that interest is very low due to the name); the record breaking E3 line-ups are very strong evidence of that. There is greater interest in Wii than there is for any other Console currently, by quite a distance; if E3 popularity, Famitsu, and other polls on major game sites (such as IGN, Gamespot, and Gamefaqs) are of any indication.

Anyways, it is true that there was much backlash towards the name early on; most loudly from "videogame fanboys" (mostly Nintendo ones). That died down quickly after generating a ton of press going into E3. Currently the general word on the system, as stated above, is very positive. Possibly the most positive things have looked for Nintendo in over 10 years.

Oh yeah, in case anyone didn't notice, that article is 100% BS.

[Flip]

It's the greatest system in the universe!!!! OMG!!!1!!1!!!111

[Julius Seeker]

Errr, all I stated was that is generating the most interest for the next generation.

[Flip]

Yeah, and all i stated was that the name still isnt popular. Nothing about system interest. See the correlation?

[Nev]

Just call it the Revolution in America...

[Julius Seeker]

Yeah, and all i stated was that the name still isnt popular. Nothing about system interest. See the correlation?

Though, before, I don't think I responded to any comment made by you besides an article you posted, Eric, and Don. The article discusses that the Wii name has caused the system to be very unpopular "49% said they wouldn't buy the console judging only by its name." This is obviously not true. You do not have to think "greatest system in the universe!!!! OMG!!!1!!1!!!111" to see that, you only have to pay a little bit of attention to major videogame sites.

[Zeus]

Too late. Can't change the name now....

[Don]

A quality name isn't measured by the number of people who would refuse to buy your system because the name sounds dumb. The fact that people are even talking about it suggests that it is a bad name. The video game industry has its share of bad names before but people don't usually go as far as saying they won't get a system on the basis of name. The Wii is the first time I've actually heard people talking about. Sure most people are just saying that but even that is worse than what has happened before.

[Oracle]

Changing it again would cause mroe negative reaction than leaving it the way it is currently. EVERYONE knows about the Wii because of its stupid name. Marketing genious, imo.

[Don]

People really need to stop with this 'marketing genius' stuff because it's sheer stupidity. If all it takes is some stupid name they could have called it the Nintendo Blah (or any number of alternative suggestions on the Net, including quite a few from this post itself). It is far easier to come up with a stupid name than a good name. I've never heard of anyone basing the success of a name by how many people refused to buy a system because the name was dumb.

The fact that the name didn't have earth-shattering negative effects like some people predicted does not mean it is a good name.

[Julius Seeker]

I've never heard of anyone basing the success of a name by how many people refused to buy a system because the name was dumb.

The article is 100% BS.

On the marketing strategy: a Nintendo exec, Perrin Kaplan, said in an interview with IGN before E3 that the purpose of announcing the name was to get a lot of attention; that Nintendo did. When E3 arrived shortly after, all of the attention which they had drawn all saw the Wii, which had quite a successful show, and now it is the system that most people are interested in. Also, of course Nintendo could have used a number of other names, but they decided on Wii for the reasons which Kaplan has said in recent IGN interviews.

According to Kaplan in the IGN interviews, the name will be associated with the Nintendo system soon, and people will get used to it; just like Yahoo, ipod, and Google. Her reasoning seems to make sense to me.

Whether what Kaplan was saying is true or not, I don't know, but things seem to have fallen into a very positive position for Nintendo as it currently looks. So right now I am not doubting the reasoning. Whatever name they did use, I was going to take a serious look at the system anyways, so it wouldn't have mattered whether or not they called it "Wii", "Revolution," or "VAGiNA." I already had plans to buy it, but before the Wii announcement; but from a general view, not many were giving "Revolution" much thought at all, even after all the announcements about the features. After the "Wii" name announcement, popularity of the system shot through the roof; I would speculate that it's because it got peoples attention, and they looked at the system features demoed at E3 and realized just how cool the system actually is. I am not sure, though, why the Virtual Console was not much discussed; personally, that is a major thing for me, I am interested to see what sort of features the VC actually has to offer.

[Don]

You seem to allude to that the positive attention was due to the stupid name. It's not. If it was called the Nintendo Vagina which would probably be a worst name than Wii, it'd be even worse.

The fact that people are interested in Wii does not imply that the name is good. I see nothing more than Nintendo's entrenched fan base high-five each other on this name and having a name approved by people who thinks Nintendo Vagina is a valid name for a system is absolutely meaningless. The positive interest the Wii gathered from people outside Nintendo's entrenched base is from the CONTROLLER which has been hyped forever, not the name.

While Internet surveys is just mostly talk, this is the first time I've heard of people claiming they won't buy a console because of a dumb name. This is somehow supposed to be better compared to people just saying your name is goofy/dumb? Did people say Google was going to fail because Google is a dumb name? Ipod? Yahoo? Dreamcast? Maybe no one approved those names back then but at least no one said they were going to fail because the name is dumb. So Nintendo is trying to one up them by putting a name that most people say is so bad it could actually doom the system because since no one's ever done it before, it must be right?

[Zeus]

At the end of the day, the name "Wii" will have negligible impact in terms of overall consumer behaviour IMO. The only ones complaining right now are the same hardcores who, by and large, will be swayed by the games or the Nintendo name, one way or the other. They will NOT buy or not buy the system 'cause it has a dumb name (I agree it's dumb).

There has been more buzz about this system in normal media than any Nintendo system in a while. Heck, my wife saw it on one of her gay shows. As far as the non-hardcores are concerned (about 85% of the market), the name will provide attention to the system, as it already has (see the Time magazine article, for an example). Now, it's true that it could be negative reaction, but will it stop, say, your mom of buying for your younger sibling 'cause the name sucks? Not at all. As much as I'd like to use these damned internet surveys to boost my point, they're really useless. VERY segregated portion of the overall population is a part of it, so the sample isn't exactly indicative of the population as a whole. GIGO at work.

Nintendo is saying the name can be pronounced in all parts of the world the same and it's a universal name (other than in Japan?). So, it's equally bad across the world, so they do, at least, have a universally accepted bad name.

Really, all a bad (or even good) name does is draw attention, that's it. It ultimately does not have much of an impact. Regardless of the name, it's all about the marketing, as Sony (Playstation was a stupid name back then) and Apple (iPoD and iMac are dumb names; always have been, always will be) have clearly shown. Now, Nintendo doesn't exactly have a great track record here, which is why I'm always saying they need to set up a demo unit in every Best Buy and maybe Toys 'R Us in the country (no benefit in EB or Gamespot, everyone who goes there is going to get the system anyways and Walmart doesn't provide as good an environment as the other places IMO) to ensure that people play the system. The gameplay will draw them in or send them away.

That, at the end of the day, is the ONLY thing that matters. Always has been, always will be. (Gameboy and DS, case in point)

[Don]

If gameplay is what matters then history says Nintendo will lose again because they lost the last two rounds and it's still the same company. You can say that's all it matters when you don't have anything else but there's always more than just that.

While most names have negligible impact on a console, in the Wii's case the negligible impact people are going for is more like 'no discernible negative influence' while to most console neglible impact usually means 'no discernible positive influence'. It's not good if your starting negligble effect is aiming for negligible sales lost versus aiming for negligble sales gained. The outcome might not matter but why would you aim for the negative direction instead of the positive?

Do you really think Nintendo's strategy is to come up with a name so stupid people will remember it? Does that imply the more stupid the name the better? Well we fans sure are quite capable of coming up with even more stupid names so why don't they listen to us? Like I said before all the Nintendo's hype is around the controller or revolutionary gameplay. It has nothing to do with the name.

XBox 360 and PS3, although not exactly the greatest names in the world, at least keeps some kind of brand name going so we can assume their influence would be greater than 0 (I really don't see how people can be turned off by these names since they already worked before). Wii, right now, looks like it's going for no negative influence. That's not really not good enough when you're starting from the #3 position if not counting Japan and you need every little edge you can get.

[Julius Seeker]

The positive interest the Wii gathered from people outside Nintendo's entrenched base is from the CONTROLLER which has been hyped forever, not the name.

The controller was only considered by people who followed gaming news closely, hardcore gamers. The Wii hadn't been generating a lot of buzz until the name was announced. When the name was announced, everyone looked to see what Wii was all about; then they found out. That is why right now it is getting by far the most attention and winning all the major polls.

Also whether or not the name is good or bad is really a very trivial matter, what is important is whether or not it can catch, whether it is memorable; which is something that brands like Yahoo, ipod, and google have achieved; even though they were seen as bad names, it wasn't long before people got over it; was was important was that they were memorable names.

But anyways, now I'm repeating myself. This isn't even my interpretation, (though I agree with it, and understand it perfectly) this was the strategy stated by NoA marketting.

[Zeus]

If gameplay is what matters then history says Nintendo will lose again because they lost the last two rounds and it's still the same company. You can say that's all it matters when you don't have anything else but there's always more than just that.

While most names have negligible impact on a console, in the Wii's case the negligible impact people are going for is more like 'no discernible negative influence' while to most console neglible impact usually means 'no discernible positive influence'. It's not good if your starting negligble effect is aiming for negligible sales lost versus aiming for negligble sales gained. The outcome might not matter but why would you aim for the negative direction instead of the positive?

Do you really think Nintendo's strategy is to come up with a name so stupid people will remember it? Does that imply the more stupid the name the better? Well we fans sure are quite capable of coming up with even more stupid names so why don't they listen to us? Like I said before all the Nintendo's hype is around the controller or revolutionary gameplay. It has nothing to do with the name.

XBox 360 and PS3, although not exactly the greatest names in the world, at least keeps some kind of brand name going so we can assume their influence would be greater than 0 (I really don't see how people can be turned off by these names since they already worked before). Wii, right now, looks like it's going for no negative influence. That's not really not good enough when you're starting from the #3 position if not counting Japan and you need every little edge you can get.

Yes, Nintendo has lost the last two rounds, but more because of the lack of software limiting gameplay than anything else (ie. NOT because their gameplay is bad, it's just they don't have the variety). They don't have the third parties very well and thus make systems solely for their own games. Great for those games, but you don't have the FPSs or GTA-like games or RPGs, thus, their limiting their audience. This is what they (again) hope to remedy with the Wii. The DS and the GBA have proven the opposite and, hence, have pounded on the competition.

I was merely pointing out the fact the name won't really have much of an affect even if people hate it. I never said that it wasn't there for a reason. People will pay attention a little more due to the weird name ("Hey, what the heck is a Wii?") but, in the end, it'll be the gameplay that draws them in. So, the name might, to the non-hardcores with some good marketing, get some to at least find out what the heck it is. But it likely won't affect whether or not they purchase.

No, Nintendo's strategy is to come up with a name people talk about. Looks like it's working, too. Like we've all mentioned before, there are a lot of stupid sounding names that you get used to after a while. And, by the time the system comes out, the name won't be much of an issue anymore, everyone will be used to it.

Like you, I've always said it's about getting the controller into people's hands. The name might only get the attention of some fringe people, but it won't affect purchase. We seem to agree here.

One of Nintendo's problems is it's "we're good and you'll eventually come around" attitudes. This is why they can't keep up now and why Sega even got a lead early in the 16-bit days. They don't have good marketing, period. Never have. The name sure as heck won't have an affect on the sales, it's all about the marketing. Since they have none, they have to rely on demo units and word of mouth. Then we'll see if people will actually buy it.

And I'm sure you won't get it as there aren't too many RPGs coming for it :-)

[Flip]

I hope the innovative gameplay is optional. Just the other day after a softball game i sat around and played some Tourist Trophy and thought to myself, "Gee, if i had to twist around to make the turna then i would even be too tired for that."

In fact, i've come to realize that difficulty in the games, reaction/timing skills in games, and story are much more important to me, so the Wii needs to hit those departments hard because swinging a controller around willy nilly will get old fast.

[Julius Seeker]

Then Wii isn't a system for you, most of the games are going to use the pointer and won't just use a button and control pad alone.

But I don't understand why you would need to twist around, do you twist around in first person games that require the usage of a mouse?

Either way, I am really looking forward to the system as it will offer better control than ever before. Analog sticks can only offer so much. Some games, such as fighters similar to Smash, will only take advantage of the control pad and buttons, but that's because there isn't really anything the pointer could be used for except menu selections, whereas games with 3D environments, and simulation games, can really benefit from it.

[Zeus]

I hope the innovative gameplay is optional. Just the other day after a softball game i sat around and played some Tourist Trophy and thought to myself, "Gee, if i had to twist around to make the turna then i would even be too tired for that."

In fact, i've come to realize that difficulty in the games, reaction/timing skills in games, and story are much more important to me, so the Wii needs to hit those departments hard because swinging a controller around willy nilly will get old fast.

I can't imagine it being too much of an issue to have it optional. You have the stick, two buttons on it, and two more easily accessible buttons on the wand. 4 buttons is often more than enough for something like racing

[Don]

So far all I have heard about how Wii is great is based on the revolutionary controller. How can it be anything else, though?

[Zeus]

So far all I have heard about how Wii is great is based on the revolutionary controller. How can it be anything else, though?

It's called innovative gameplay. Besides, they'll have the Virtual Controller for anyone who still thinks the PS2/PS3 controller is the pinnacle of controller evolution.

[Don]

And yeah they've had this innovative gameplay that they've not been using all this time while the Nintendo console has been 3rd place outside of Japan?

The innovative gameplay is the controller. Without it there's nothing new unless you think they will suddenly get these great new ideas.

[Zeus]

And yeah they've had this innovative gameplay that they've not been using all this time while the Nintendo console has been 3rd place outside of Japan?

The innovative gameplay is the controller. Without it there's nothing new unless you think they will suddenly get these great new ideas.

They have different gameplay all the time. As someone who doesn't own a Nintendo system, you likely wouldn't know this. Try Jungle Beat sometime, it's very different and rules.

Nintendo's entire success (remember, they make more than any other game company BY FAR) is due to the fact they continue to innovate all the time, period.

[Don]

Oh boy, now we're back to the 'nintendo makes a lot of money so it must be right?' argument again? I thought we're talking about the system, not how much the money the company behind them makes? Unless you're a Nintendo stockholder or you've reasons to believe MS or Sony are going to quit due to financial problems, this is meaningless. And this is coming from a guy with tasteless jab on 'Micro$haft' or 'Dragonbore', where one is only the most profitable software company while the other is only the most profitable manga ever since manga existed, and almost certainly the most profitable Anime (Yugioh at its height might've surpassed it, nothing else could come close)? Or is Nintendo somehow different because unlike the other 2 examples of making massive amount of money, Nintendo is stuck at 3rd place outside of Japan? So if you lose and make a ton of money, that means you must be right?

I don't care if you like to send piles of money to Nintendo to make them the most profitable gaming company, but it is hardly relevant to the discussion about which console to get. I know it is hard for you to understand this, but people who like Nintendo enough to buy one of their console system just for them are a vast MINORITY in this world because if it's not true, they wouldn't be 3rd place right now. So if your reason as to why Nintendo will come out at the top has to do with anything Nintendo, I, as part of the majority of the gaming world that do not own a Nintendo system due to Nintendo games, will not take the suggestion seriously. Yes I know you think Nintendo games are great. Too bad the rest of the world doesn't think so and the burden is on you because your console is the one that's losing right now.

[Julius Seeker]

Well, my current #1 system is DS, and it's first place worldwide in the overall videogame market right now. I don't think Zeus has embraced the system like some others here have =)

But that isn't the point of this topic =)

I think the main point was whether Wii should change its name or not.

Why was it chosen?

The name Wii is a marketing scheme that is meant to get peoples attention so they will check out the system, see that it offers more diverse control than ever before, and that the price is right, and also that there are a lot of other gaming bonuses including free online play, the virtual console, and many different methods to control games. Going with a conventional and non-interesting safe name like Gamecube did nothing for Nintendo, it didn't catch any eyes like Wii did.

To people like us, here at the Shrine, the name doesn't matter, we don't really need Nintendo to get our attention, we're hardcore gamers, we pay attention to everything regardless of the name =)

For me I am quite intrigued to see how things work on Wii, because the DS has shown with games like Advance Wars, Metroid, Brain Age, Phoenix Wright, Age of Empires, and others, that a new dimension to control can add a great deal more potential to certain types of games. First Person Shooters on Wii will be unreal (well, actually, I guess closer to reality =P), not to mention easier simulation, strategy, and just about any other type of game that uses a 3D environment. The pointer on the controller really adds a lot of potential. I am quite intrigued.

When all is said and done, you know how the song goes: Wii will rock you =)

[Zeus]

Oh boy, now we're back to the 'nintendo makes a lot of money so it must be right?' argument again? I thought we're talking about the system, not how much the money the company behind them makes? Unless you're a Nintendo stockholder or you've reasons to believe MS or Sony are going to quit due to financial problems, this is meaningless. And this is coming from a guy with tasteless jab on 'Micro$haft' or 'Dragonbore', where one is only the most profitable software company while the other is only the most profitable manga ever since manga existed, and almost certainly the most profitable Anime (Yugioh at its height might've surpassed it, nothing else could come close)? Or is Nintendo somehow different because unlike the other 2 examples of making massive amount of money, Nintendo is stuck at 3rd place outside of Japan? So if you lose and make a ton of money, that means you must be right?

I don't care if you like to send piles of money to Nintendo to make them the most profitable gaming company, but it is hardly relevant to the discussion about which console to get. I know it is hard for you to understand this, but people who like Nintendo enough to buy one of their console system just for them are a vast MINORITY in this world because if it's not true, they wouldn't be 3rd place right now. So if your reason as to why Nintendo will come out at the top has to do with anything Nintendo, I, as part of the majority of the gaming world that do not own a Nintendo system due to Nintendo games, will not take the suggestion seriously. Yes I know you think Nintendo games are great. Too bad the rest of the world doesn't think so and the burden is on you because your console is the one that's losing right now.

I was simply pointing out the fact that their success is based on their innovation. When I get back home, I'll send you a link from a developer (he now does midware) that'll properly explain what I meant.

That was a post in response to your "Nintendo doesn't innovate gameplay" remark above, so don't go on a tangent simply because of a small comment in parenthesis. I noticed you completed ignored the whole "try Jungle Beat" comment and everything else in that post, which was in reference to innovative gameplay as per the point of the reply, but made a bee-line for the "(make more money)" parenthesis comment.

You may not know this about me, but I do NOT under any circumstance link money-making to what I think is good, just to point out that money making means a lot of others think it's good. But that doesn't, in any way, make me think it's good. Hence the Microshaft and Dragonbore terms. That's my way of saying "I don't care if they make money, they suck".

Besides, since when does being bigger mean you're better? Who cares if they're third or first? From a business point of view, they have by far the best returns. From a consumer point of view, they know what their strengths and weaknesses are and don't bother going out into things they don't really know how to do. That's why you don't see a Mario GTA, they just don't do that type of game. What their mistake has been, and I've said this a lot, is that they had a big-time arrogance that cost them the third party support, which is what has placed them into third. They got a very little back with the 'Cube, but that's another tangent.

And also from a consumer point of view, I know I'm going to get great games and great gameplay, both refined and innovative. So, from a consumer point of view, I keep getting their system because of that. At the end of the day, that's what matters to me. So, even though I have less games for that system than for any of the other systems I have (and I have them all) the 'Cube gets turned on more just because it has more fun and accessible games. Other than Shadow of the Colossus and Guitar Hero - two games I've praised endlessly here - there hasn't been much else on the 'Box or the PS2 in the last year or so that has been that great.

[Kupek]

Oh boy, now we're back to the 'nintendo makes a lot of money so it must be right?' argument again? I thought we're talking about the system, not how much the money the company behind them makes?

I think it's relevant because you keep saying they're in third place, which implies that they are somehow in trouble. The point Zeus was trying to make, as I understand it, is that as a company, they're doing well. Being in thid place hasn't put them in any danger. They're not desperate.

[Julius Seeker]

Actually, Nintendo is only third if you consider Gamecube unit sales alone. If you consider software, the Gamecube has had more software sold on it than the Xbox, but less than PS2, which would make it second. If considering videogame market based revenue, then Nintendo is also a solid second here. If considering videogame market based profits, Nintendo is a distant first, EA is second, and Sony is third; Microsoft is last, because I doubt any other company loses billions on the market (but Microsoft can afford to, I think their marketing goal right now is more about out competeting other videogame companies rather than making a profit). If considering software sales alone based on companies, Nintendo is first, and EA is second.

When Sony says they are primarilly a hardware company, they are telling the truth. That is the only portion of the market where they dominate.

If there is any mystery as to why EA is such a powerful force in the market, consider that they practically own the PC gaming market; which is their home base for sales. They run several very popular videogame companies, most notably Maxis which is far and beyond #1 on PC.

[Oracle]

And EA just acquired Mythic Entertainment (Dark Age of Camelot), who are now working on a Warhammer MMORPG. I can only assume that will help their numbers.

[Zeus]

Here is that link I was referring to which has an ex-software and current middleware developer making a good case for Nintendo's success being based on innovation and why they MUST continue to make systems or they're dead:

http://lostgarden.com/2005/09/nintendos ... ategy.html

It's very good, particularly when you consider it's coming from someone with actual knowledge of what it takes to make a successful game

[Sephy]

Is it innovative? Yep. Do I think its useless, doesn't sound fun in the slightest, and am put off by the Gamecube quality graphics? Yep.

Outside of the portable market, Nintendo hasn't done anything for me in a long time. The N64 produced my favorite game of all time (Mario 64) and 2 other pretty damn good games (Zelda and Starfox), but nothing else interested me. The Gamecube was the worst system I've ever bought.

The only thing on the Wii that looks remotely intriguing are again, Zelda and Mario. That isn't enough to get me to buy one for a while.

[Zeus]

Is it innovative? Yep. Do I think its useless, doesn't sound fun in the slightest, and am put off by the Gamecube quality graphics? Yep.

Outside of the portable market, Nintendo hasn't done anything for me in a long time. The N64 produced my favorite game of all time (Mario 64) and 2 other pretty damn good games (Zelda and Starfox), but nothing else interested me. The Gamecube was the worst system I've ever bought.

The only thing on the Wii that looks remotely intriguing are again, Zelda and Mario. That isn't enough to get me to buy one for a while.

You don't find Wario Ware intriguing at all?

Then what is it exactly that you're looking for? More of the same, just refined? I'm not overly opposed to that either and my love for the Mega Man series is proof of that. Mega Man is the perfect example of evolutionary gameplay as opposed to revolutionary gameplay. Same with Street Fighter. Each isn't that much different than the one before, but each one is refined and adds very small things to the one before it. Ain't nothing wrong with that. You don't have to re-invent the wheel to make a spectacular game. Look at the new Super Mario Bros, it's awesome and another example of evolutionary gameplay.

Not every game has to be Shadow of the Colossus, Jungle Beat, or Guitar Hero(wow, look at that, Zeus referring to two of three non-Nintendo games when referring to innovation; the apocalypse truly has begun :-). But it's those games that often have a very strong influence on gaming in general. And there's no denying that Nintendo has had a ton of influence over the course of gaming over the last 20 years. Only Don would argue against that one :-) (just joking, man)

[Julius Seeker]

Gamecube has been pretty much dead for a while. My favourite games are Skies of Arcadia: Legends, Metroid Prime, Eternal Darkness, and Legend of Zelda: The Master Quest. Two of those games are upgrades which improve two of my favourite games of all time though. So of new games, I do see Eternal Darkness as the best original game of the Gamecube. I know Resident Evil 4 was considered the big game for the system, but the way I see it, Eternal Darkness makes RE4 (and also Silent Hill) feel extremely primitive in all aspects, except graphics, RE4 on Gamecube has the best graphics of the generation.

Wii is offering, at launch, the best version of what might be the new best game available, period: Twilight Princess. Not to mention, Metroid Prime: Corruption, I loved the original, but had a very large problem with the limited controls which the Wii completely fixes. Red Steel, by Ubisoft, should also kick ass. The development team who is doing it is probably the most talented dev team outside of Japan right now.

[Sephy]

I've heard Red Steel wasn't turning out very well.

I'm all for innovation, but I'm not into this innovation in particular. I'm also fairly down on nintendo, because the consoles only seem to have zero games I'm into outside of the first party games as of late. No, Wario Ware does nothing for me, but none of the Mario party games did either, and they have a similar minigame aspect.

Wii controlller doesn't really appeal to me at all. I don't want to have to wave my hands around to throw a pass in Madden. Honestly, I think without the tactical feel, most of these games will just be too weird.

[Julius Seeker]

I've heard Red Steel wasn't turning out very well.

I'm all for innovation, but I'm not into this innovation in particular. I'm also fairly down on nintendo, because the consoles only seem to have zero games I'm into outside of the first party games as of late. No, Wario Ware does nothing for me, but none of the Mario party games did either, and they have a similar minigame aspect.

Wii controlller doesn't really appeal to me at all. I don't want to have to wave my hands around to throw a pass in Madden. Honestly, I think without the tactical feel, most of these games will just be too weird.

Well, if you have tried it, and don't like it, then no one is forcing you to buy it. Not everyone is going to like it; it's kind of like Guitar hero and DDR, some people love it, some people don't. On Red Steel, the E3 portion of the game wasn't yet complete, perticularly the sword battle portion, it was just kind of tacked in there for the E3 demo. It'll most likely turn out to be a great game based on this teams track record.

Madden? I doubt even the Wii controller can stop it from being anything other than the world's #1 generic sports title =P

[Zeus]

I've heard Red Steel wasn't turning out very well.

I'm all for innovation, but I'm not into this innovation in particular. I'm also fairly down on nintendo, because the consoles only seem to have zero games I'm into outside of the first party games as of late. No, Wario Ware does nothing for me, but none of the Mario party games did either, and they have a similar minigame aspect.

Wii controlller doesn't really appeal to me at all. I don't want to have to wave my hands around to throw a pass in Madden. Honestly, I think without the tactical feel, most of these games will just be too weird.

That's coo, I can understand that if you just happen to not like their types of games.

And I was never really big on Red Steel myself. I like the idea, but they need to prove it to me. And the whole waving to throw a ball in Madden wasn't the greatest idea as it would be far too difficult to get the fine throwing down IMO. They'd have to dumb it down a little (ie. not make it so fine to throw) to make it playable IMO. Imagine rearing back to throw a ball and having to actually get the fine-tuning down on the strength. If there's any more than about 3 strength levels (short, medium, far), it'll be way too complicated.

Put the controller in your hands and try a game before you make the final decision. That's what I'm doing. I'm excited for the possibilities and what they're giving us in terms of info on the new gameplay, but I'm gonna have to play this thing and see how it works before I'm fully on board. Wario Ware looks like it's a can't miss with the mini-games, but that's it for now. The rest - including Mario, Zelda, and Metroid, all of which look great - will have to prove to me they're not more than a gimmick. So, I'm excited, but I've got reservations on the final execution.

I'll still get one off the bat if I can. Even if I don't like the system, it's going to be worth a bundle on Ebay before the new year.