tanman

A couple of points.

One thing to remember is that this is coming from the US division of Nintendo. He even admits that he doesn't have any control over the decisions. So take it as you will.

Another thing is that I don't consider myself a joe-6er. I am closer to a hardcore gamer and know what I like. I think Nintendo's strategy for this generation has been very good. They eschewed the online aspect simply because they don't have the money (I would love to see them get into it) They have concentrated on their own software which has been simply incredible this generation [waits for retort from Josh]. They have relaxed a bit by trying different things and being able to actually work with another developer (ie Namco, Capcom). I really don't understand why they haven't done so well this gen. I think the quality of their software is second to none. To me it really seems like it is the J6Ps that keep the gap so wide. How many PS2s do you think are siting around collecting dust bought by people who know nothing about the different games that are available for each system. I think every console has something to contribute and think that the numbers (sold) should be much closer.

In terms of 3rd party support, to me it isn't very important. I think it is the exclusives that are important. I really could care less about the titles that are coming out for the XBox and the PS2 but not the GCN. But the exclusives are another matter. The Final Fantasys, SOCOMs, HALOs, Kingdom Hearts etc. are what I think would make the difference. I think that they were/are definately hurting without the Square (& Enix) banner. I think that Nintendo already has the 3rd parties that matter EA, Namco etc. This leads me to believe that it is not the success of the 3rd parties that lead to the success of the system but the success of the system that sells the games. People buy the 3rd party games because they have the system.

As far as the next system I don't know. I hope that they catch more people by emphasizing 3rd party support. But I really don't want them to detract from their in-house games. And it definately needs Online capability out of the box.

menaz

How can you say 3rd party support is not important? 3rd party support is what creates a variety in the games. I consider myself a gamer, and I know what I want. I want a large selection of games, not just a few, that everyone seems to think are great except me. Tons of times before I have been blamed of having bad taste in games in these boards, mainly because I dont like childish games very much. Numerous times I have argued against Mario Sunshine and Zelda, because those are not the type of games I prefer. Eventhough I have a gamecube now, I have one for 2 reasons, GB player and Metal Gear Solid Twin Snakes,if it wasnt for those reason, I still wouldnt own one. The xbox and PS2 have had all my support, because of all the mature games and the huge selection of games. The large selection comes from third parties, making them extremely important in the success of a console.

tanman

funny how you gripe about being blamed for bad taste when you just did the same thing to me. Although I must agree if you pass on a game just because it is "childish".

I SAID additional 3rd party support is not important TO ME. Nintendo already has 3rd party support from most of the big labels that I care about. I only really care about the exclusives for each system. The Final Fantasys, Halos, Metroids etc.

Revoltor

MOD EDIT: Your post was removed. You will be receiving an e-mail shortly. -namja

Josh H

To be fair Nintendo did at least try to get better third party support. With getting RE as exclusive as a major example.

I mean it's not like MS has many killer third party exclusives, mainly just getting time exclusives.

When Sony has such a huge lead, third parties are going to be hesistant to give exclusives to Nintendo or MS.

joeblow69

This has got to be the stupidest thing I've ever read on these forums. I mean, I know you're joking, but still... I'm going to have to break out the and the for this one.

MOD EDIT: Revoltor's quote was removed. Yes, it was stupid. -namja

Apollo

"This holiday season and the following year will be very telling for online gaming, because consumers' free one-year subscriptions will run out and they'll have to decide -- do I spend, or not? That, or our competitors will have to decide whether to continue giving it away for free. So I don't think that we're missing anything by not being involved. I will say, though, that it certainly has played out the way we thought it would in this generation. The hype may have been more important than the actual substance."

What is he talking about? Xbox Live is 49.95 per year and Sony is free as far as I can tell. I smell a lot of boloney in this statement.

Josh H

With X-box live, they paid 49.95 for the kit and a year, so I guess he's saying the year is free and people that bought it last year will have to decide whether to shell out the $50 again.

Sony is free for most games, but the upcoming FFXI will be like $12 a month, so that will be a good test.

kvrdave

Agree. I am not an online gamer so it means absolutely nothing to me, but if I were, I think I would prefer the way X-box has been doing it instead of PS2's "support your own" approach.