Our computing buddies at News.com are reporting that Nintendo’s 2006 next gen entrance will hurt the companies attempt to regain it’s ground. Hasn’t Nintendo always been a second moving with the exception of NES? If the Revolution is to be what it’s title suggest, maybe they should have tried to be the first mover, hence re-revolutionizing the home console industry. Your thoughts?
Nintendo’s late entrance
Related Items
3 Comments
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Nicholas Roussos
I don’t think early entrance has ever been that important. Take the Dreamcast as a prime example.
On top of that, I really don’t think that this generation of consoles is any where near dead. So, there’s not necessarily a rush to move to the next generation. Certinly, the generation model that consoles are currently following must be short lived. How many generations of consoles will there be before the market is over saturated and consumers refuse to purchase anymore.
Blake
Yeah, i really think their is a good year or two left in the gamecube.
Esmail
I agree with nicholas and blake,
the current generation still has some life in it. Microsoft is really rushing to release its XBox 360 this year (IMHO). The best timing for next-gen consoles would be around this time next year, maybe Q2 2006.
The only thing that will help a new console is the services it provides, not the quality of graphics. For me, I wouldn’t buy any new console just becuase it has superior graphics and maybe wireless controllers, even if it’s 10X more realistic, i don’t care.
XBox 360 has its XBox live feature, Revolution has the whole mysterious “features,” PS3 has also its features and fanbase. But, the winning company is the one who can use its services with the console, period.
PS. Nintendo probably is going to release Revolution in 2006 because they want a solid software line-up.