Twilight Princess DELAYED

[Astrotoy7]

.. you're a "peak of masculinity"....

 

why thank you sithy

 

The only problem with having to wait so long for anything is that expectations creep up higher and higher....

 

I agree with IG, perhaps they probably shouldve just waited and made it a launching game for the N-Rev.... Zelda is one of Nintendos trump cards that wouldve been absolute marketing genius... ah well, at least the GC gets to go out on a high note

 

mtfbwya

[Seph]

Well it might be hard to believe but It looks like nintendo actually respects their loyal fans. LukeSkywalker1 not yet, but I did get the trailer in my nintendo power and they prolly played it at E3 or just watched the trailers.

[toms]

They rarely release GCN playable demo disks do they? (only one i remember is viewtiful joe). I'm assuming he saw it at E3 or another games show.

 

All i can see on the horizon for the next 6 months is Battalion Wars: Under Fire (which i'm not at all sure about), Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance and Odama (though that won't be out for a long time).

If i could get old GCN games at a reasonable price it might be worth it, but Twin Snakes and Ikagura are about the only old one i really want, and they are still well expensive, even on ebay.

[Lynk Former]

I agree with IG, perhaps they probably shouldve just waited and made it a launching game for the N-Rev.... Zelda is one of Nintendos trump cards that wouldve been absolute marketing genius... ah well, at least the GC gets to go out on a high note

You say that it would be absolute marketing genius if Twilight Princess was a Revolution launch title... do you know how stupid that actually is? No really, do you? Has anyone even thought about how stupid it would be to convert the game into a Revolution game even if it is being released in the transition period between the new and old generations?

 

Think about it. The Nintendo Revolution is backwards compatible to the GameCube and Twilight Princess is being built as a GameCube game. People who have a GameCube will be able to enjoy this game, but what about people who don't have a GameCube? Some of those people may buy a GameCube just to play this game... but what of the people who don't want a GameCube at all but may be willing to buy a Revolution? They could buy a Revolution and be able to play this game.

 

But the best part is that you don't HAVE to buy the Revolution to play this game. If you are a GameCube owner and you cannot afford to buy the Revoluition right away or at all, you will still be able to buy this game and play it and enjoy it.

 

This game is very much wanted by the gamer community, there is no doubt about that. The Legend of Zelda has the power to grab a very large audience and this game is making a lot of people drool. To make this game accessable is the key to its success. Limiting it to the Revolution only would only hurt its sales. And then there is also the fact that Nintendo have already stated that there will be a seperate Revolution Zelda game on the horizon.

 

In the end, I expect this game to be fun, that's all I want from it. I don't give a f*** whether it will be bigger than Halo or Grand Theft Auto or whatever. I just want more of that goodness that I have played in Ocarina of Time, Majora's Mask and The Wind Waker and for there to be new and exciting experiences to be had with this game.

 

And already I know that Twilight Princess will have everything I've wanted in it and more. I don't like waiting but if I have to I will.

[toms]

And already I know that Twilight Princess will have everything I've wanted in it and more. I don't like waiting but if I have to I will.

 

Cool!! how?? [/kidding]

 

Its kind of impossible to tell if its a good decision to delay it or not, as we don't have much information to work on.

 

I don't think changing it to a REV title is as daft as you make out though. i don't think they have released any info on what REV launch titles will be - so there may alreayd be a zelda one - but assuming there isn't:

 

- Having a big name zelda title to bundle with your console will definately help shift units.

- Launch titles often sell far more than late-in-the-day titles. (Ocarina was like the 4th biggest seller on n64, beaten only by ones like Mario64, mariokart and Goldeneye - Majora came late and was about 15th in the list, selling about the same number as WCW Revenge and Ep1 Racer) (tho it did need an expansion pack)

- Gamecube titles won't shift many REVs - late PS1 titles didn't have people queueing to buy PS2s... its more of a bonus that your old games will still work.

- As the REV is compatible with the GCN it shouldn't be too hard to port the game across.

- If the problems they are having are to do with getting the most out of the GCN hardware then movig to REV will give them a lot more to work with.

- Launching a big GCN game just before the REV runs the risk of either overloading the market with zelda games (if there IS a REV zelda launch title) or getting people to buy cheap GCNs for it, so they won't want to buy a new console a few months later.

 

As i said, we are only guessing, but i'd think a retooled REV version would sell far more, and have the benefit of selling lots of their new console. Whether this would outweight the costs of retooling it is hard to say... but its not inconcevable.

 

Eternal Darkness was retooled from an n64 game to a GCN one (a much hard task i'd think) and that turned out pretty good).

 

ps/ all this is entirely MHO

[Astrotoy7]

thanks Toms.... Lynky must learn to control his emotions methinks

 

I really dont care that much to engage in any further discussion about it. Lets just hope it turns out well, and not just a piece of shyte eye candy

 

mtfbwya

[Lynk Former]

@ Astro: I wasn't angry, I just thought what you said was stupid.

 

 

@ toms: Aright, since we're going for dot points here I'll do the same to counter what you've just said...

 

- Judging from Nintendo's stance towards Zelda it is obvious that they do not believe it is a good idea to sell the series as a launch title. I've noticed that they wait till enough units of the console have been sold before bringing out a Zelda game. It seems to work very well.

- Ocarina of Time sold more than Mario64, Mario Kart and GoldenEye worldwide. Majora's Mask wasn't popular in the first place but yes, some people may have sen it as coming late. The difference is that the GCN wasn't backwards compatible to the N64.

- If the Revolution can play GameCube games then I don't see why they need to make it a Revolution game in the first place

- The GameCube hardware is more than capable, I don't think that's the problem, it's just the fact that games like this take more time to make because they have more substance than say your average FPS.

- Who ever said that Nintendo was going to saturate the market by releasing two console Zelda games in close proximity to eachother? Nintendo just said that they will be releasing a Revolution Zelda game, nothing more.

 

As I've said before, allowing Twilight Princess to be accessable to both the GameCube and Revolution userbase will result in more sales, NOT restricting it to Revolution only.

[El Sitherino]

I don't think changing it to a REV title is as daft as you make out though.

Except it is. It's retarded to cut your market when you can easily keep it completely open by having it on the GameCube. Limiting it to the revolution loses money. Having it on GameCube opens you up to take full advantage of the market.

 

Basics of free market, never limit yourself.

 

If you don't get it yet, ask me and I'll explain or take an economics course.

[Seph]

What's sad is that a friend of mine owns a perfectly good gamecube said he'd buy a revelution for this game. So I told him and said that it's coming out for GCN and I'd let him borrow my Master quest to tide him over until then, So he freaked out and told me I was wrong that it's a revelution title so I'm waiting for an apology.

[ET Warrior]

Especially considering the fact that companies make more money off of video game sales than actual unit sales, it seems ONLY logical for TP to be a GCN title. Firstly, it will still help sell Revolutions, because people who don't own a 'cube will probably decide to get a revolution just because of this game, and potential future Zelda's. I know a few people who have already told me such.

 

Secondly, you have set up a situation where people who own gamecubes but can't afford a new console will STILL buy your game, and everyone who buys the new console will ALSO buy your game.

[Prime]

Secondly, you have set up a situation where people who own gamecubes but can't afford a new console will STILL buy your game, and everyone who buys the new console will ALSO buy your game.

But you want people to move to the new console and ditch the old console. Putting out the game on the old console is detrimental to that goal. They want people to say, "Damn, I really want to play that game, so I better get this new box." Not "**** the new box, I can play this game anyway and only pay 50 bucks." Sure, some can't afford it, but a lot of people can, and you want to give every incentive you can to switch. This is a strong way to do that. Kind of like Halo 3 getting people to buy the 360.

 

It is a common practice that most campanies in most fields (especially technology) use that tactic. They understand that they may take a hit in the short term (those who do not buy the game because they only have the old platform) for increased profits in the long term (they buy the new console and you sell them lots of new games to play on it).

[ET Warrior]

But the Revolution is GOING to get a Zelda title, and THAT will pull people to the revolution. But keeping THIS title on the GCN means that it'll draw both, selling a TON of copies of this game, while still having hte draw to revolution down the road.

[Mike Windu]

edit: decided to contribute more

 

I believe that putting out a big name title near the end of the console cycle is sort of silly. They should be pushing more for the Revolution instead of the Cube imo, simply because they need to.

 

Zelda is one of the most famous titles out there, it doesn't matter if they put out another Zelda game later, launch titles help boost sales. (like Halo 3)

 

Putting out a Zelda game later would sell, sure, but it wouldn't do as good as a Zelda launch title.

 

But since it's been announced by Nintendo to come out for the GC I don't think they should recall that and put it on the Revolution.

[Prime]

But the Revolution is GOING to get a Zelda title, and THAT will pull people to the revolution. But keeping THIS title on the GCN means that it'll draw both, selling a TON of copies of this game, while still having hte draw to revolution down the road.

I haven't followed the Revolution/Zelda trends, so I don't know what is getting released when, but if they want to sell the Revolution in the near future, then having it exclusive is the way to go.

[lukeskywalker1]

Well, its common sense, if I really want Zelda, but I don't have GCN, you see Zelda Twilight princess on the shelf, you look over and see a backwards compatible Revolution... and you have a choice, buy an outdated console and play zelda, or buy a brand new next gen console and play the same exact game, possibly with a small graphical improvement and no doubt, faster loading times. What you choose? If it were me, and I had money to burn, I'd grab the revolution and zelda.

 

EDIT: I forgot:

 

If i could get old GCN games at a reasonable price it might be worth it, but Twin Snakes and Ikagura are about the only old one i really want, and they are still well expensive, even on ebay.

 

Twin Snakes is actually pretty new (2004 release date) but I managed to pick it up brand new at GameStop for only $20. They had the used one on another shelf for $17. I figured, for $3 extra I can have it brand new, guaranteed to work. I don't know how the pricing works in the UK.

 

 

EDIT: GameStop Reference:

http://www.gamestop.com/product.asp?product%5Fid=916385

[El Sitherino]

I dunno. Perhaps I trust Nintendo knows what they're doing since they've been selling **** for much longer than most of us have been alive.

[Mike Windu]

Forgive us for being a bit skeptical because in the process of selling said ****, they've made some silly mistakes

 

Then again, that is to be expected with any huge company. Nintendo gets a lot of press attention when they mess up.

[Lynk Former]

There are still a lot of games being released right now as we speak, should all of those games be stopped and released for their respective next gen consoles? No, because all consoles (cept maybe the 360) is backwards compatible, you have a library of last generation games ready and able to be played on your new consoles.

 

The Revolution is THE backwards compatible console. I would think that if people are gonna get a Revolution they'd take advantage of the GCN and virtual backwards compatiblity features. It's one of its main selling points, the fact that it has 20 years worth of gaming behind it which includes Twilight Princess.

 

People make it sound like that the Revolution won't sell if there is no Zelda Revolution game as a launch title. XD AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH... Come on guys, you know that isn't true. I know most people here probably don't have that optimistic an opinion of Nintendo but Nintendo still make great profits and Nintendo is like a "style" and there will always be a group of people who will want that "style."

 

And to add to that Nintendo has already said that there will be a new Zelda game in the future, just like there will be a new Metroid game and a new Mario game and a new Donkey Kong game and a new... well you get the idea ... it's stupid to think that Nintendo only has this planned.

 

The funniest part is that you guys forgot a BIGGER game than Zelda that is a launch title for the Revolution. SUPER SMASH BROS. Anyone remember that game? The perfect Nintendo launch title, it worked for the GCN, it'll work for the Revolution.

 

I don't mean to sound this way but a lot of what people have said is very narrowminded to JUST how Zelda will affect the market. Yeah, Zelda is great, but it's not the only game that Nintendo sells in large numbers, and it's not the only thing that attracts people TO Nintendo.

 

XD *shakes head* lol.

[Astrotoy7]

Lynk, i still dont get why you get so worked up about this ****. Whatever they do im sure Nintendo will make a crapload of money, none of which is going to be forwarded to you or I

 

mtfbwya

[Lynk Former]

*points at where we are*

Web Forum. This is where you come when you have a 5 minutes to waste to post an opinion.

 

*points at thread*

The Legend of Zelda. Something I'm interested in, a thread that interests me.

 

*points at other members*

Other people. Interaction.

 

*points at Astro*

A person who is trying to look clever with the whole "don't get worked up, chill" thing.

 

 

 

It's a thread about Zelda, everyone is expressing their opinion and so am I, if my opinions seem strong to you then I suggest you don't read them and leave me alone. Okay?

[Mike Windu]

People make it sound like that the Revolution won't sell if there is no Zelda Revolution game as a launch title. XD AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH... Come on guys, you know that isn't true. I know most people here probably don't have that optimistic an opinion of Nintendo but Nintendo still make great profits and Nintendo is like a "style" and there will always be a group of people who will want that "style."

 

We said it would sell better. We all know Revolution will gather sales. But a Zelda launch title would definitely boost the number of Revolution sales as well as boosting its own.

 

There are still a lot of games being released right now as we speak, should all of those games be stopped and released for their respective next gen consoles? No, because all consoles (cept maybe the 360) is backwards compatible, you have a library of last generation games ready and able to be played on your new consoles.

 

Comparably they don't generate the number of sales that a series such as Zelda does. Only games I think that would generate that sort of money would be Final Fantasy XII or Kingdom Hearts II.

 

And to add to that Nintendo has already said that there will be a new Zelda game in the future, just like there will be a new Metroid game and a new Mario game and a new Donkey Kong game and a new... well you get the idea ... it's stupid to think that Nintendo only has this planned.

 

Yes, we are quite aware that there is a Zelda game planned for the future. But that's not the point. We are stating that having Zelda as a launch title for the Revolution would, as stated above, not only boost the sales of the Revolution, but of the game itself.

 

The funniest part is that you guys forgot a BIGGER game than Zelda that is a launch title for the Revolution. SUPER SMASH BROS. Anyone remember that game? The perfect Nintendo launch title, it worked for the GCN, it'll work for the Revolution.

 

Hmm... I could have sworn I mentioned ssb somewhere in one of my posts, but I can't find it anymore. Oh well. The point is, just because we simply don't mention a title doesn't mean we have forgotten about it. SSB is a heavy hitter franchise. Much like Zelda. What? Nintendo coming with TWO heavy hitters upon launch doesn't seem feasible to you?

 

SSB is my favorite game besides Kingdom Hearts, and I look forward greatly to playing it. Note I said playing it, not buying it. Because that's what happened last time. Bought a GC, holy crap SSBM is awesome. But... not much else imo. Sure there's Metroid Prime, but meh. Sure there's Mario, Windwaker, whatever. I wait for all those to drop -20 before I buy them because they aren't must have games for me.

 

 

 

I don't mean to sound this way but a lot of what people have said is very narrowminded to JUST how Zelda will affect the market. Yeah, Zelda is great, but it's not the only game that Nintendo sells in large numbers, and it's not the only thing that attracts people TO Nintendo.

 

Granted, Nintendo has a lot of other franchises, but other than Mario and Metroid (not a bad amount of money this cycle, sequel could have sold better) and Starfox (... come on. As an avid SF player I must call BS on both of their decisions for this franchise. Hell, SF Adventures even copies the Zelda formula almost exactly.) Zelda, whether you realize it or not, is still something that sells a hell of a lot and generates a hell of a lot of money. Having people buy a 50 dollar GC, play Zelda, and sell it back is not good marketing strategy IMO. Having them buy a Revolution, AND Zelda... that's good marketing. They've already caused a big buzz about the whole secrecy thing... why not play into that?

 

The Revolution is THE backwards compatible console. I would think that if people are gonna get a Revolution they'd take advantage of the GCN and virtual backwards compatiblity features. It's one of its main selling points, the fact that it has 20 years worth of gaming behind it which includes Twilight Princess.

 

Aye, it is. But it was the selling point of the PS2 to be able to play your PS1 games. That is what caught my attention, but once everyone got caught in the flood of PS2 games, you forgot about the old PS1 games. Now, I'm not saying Nintendo will be like that, but I believe it will lose potential sales.

[Lynk Former]

We said it would sell better. We all know Revolution will gather sales. But a Zelda launch title would definitely boost the number of Revolution sales as well as boosting its own.

I don't believe it would make enough of a different for Nintendo to justify wasting more money upgrading it to a Revolution game. That's what I think.

 

Yes, we are quite aware that there is a Zelda game planned for the future. But that's not the point. We are stating that having Zelda as a launch title for the Revolution would, as stated above, not only boost the sales of the Revolution, but of the game itself.

And I'm saying it's not wise to use Twilight Princess that way. That's what Smash Bros Revolution is for. Twilight Princess on the other hand is the game that Nintendo wants to make accessable to as many people as possible. To do that you make it a GameCube game. Yes it may boost the Revolution sales initially but that's thinking on a very short term base. Seeing as a Zelda game will be released on the Revolution in the first place why bother to spend more money just to limit the userbase that can play this game?

 

 

Hmm... I could have sworn I mentioned ssb somewhere in one of my posts, but I can't find it anymore. Oh well. The point is, just because we simply don't mention a title doesn't mean we have forgotten about it. SSB is a heavy hitter franchise. Much like Zelda. What? Nintendo coming with TWO heavy hitters upon launch doesn't seem feasible to you?

It's also unwise to bring out too many big hitters out at the same time. Again, people are thinking short term.

 

Granted, Nintendo has a lot of other franchises, but other than Mario and Metroid (not a bad amount of money this cycle, sequel could have sold better) and Starfox (... come on. As an avid SF player I must call BS on both of their decisions for this franchise. Hell, SF Adventures even copies the Zelda formula almost exactly.) Zelda, whether you realize it or not, is still something that sells a hell of a lot and generates a hell of a lot of money. Having people buy a 50 dollar GC, play Zelda, and sell it back is not good marketing strategy IMO. Having them buy a Revolution, AND Zelda... that's good marketing. They've already caused a big buzz about the whole secrecy thing... why not play into that?

This is exactly why I think it's better for the game to be accessable. You're only thinking about half of the field. Think of it this way, you have a GameCube and you cannot afford to buy a Revolution at this point, but you can buy Twilight Princess. If TP is a GCN game, bingo, you can play it. If TP is a Revolution game, damn you can't get it, it's a Revolution game. Does that automatically mean that this person will go out and buy a Revolution? What if they want to buy a PS3 instead and Twilight Princess is the last GCN game they will be getting?

 

Like I keep saying over and over, making Twilight Princess accessable to the old and new generation means more sales for Twilight Princess. Nintendo doesn't need to worry about boosting Revolution sales because they have other games to do that.

[Mike Windu]

But they should worrying, because they're not stacking up to their competitors.

 

TP will cater to fans who won't be getting a Revolution, but where does that put Nintendo?

 

Also, I am unaware of any OTHER big name franchises being released by Nintendo on launch day. Zelda would not only garner interest; hell, it's a system seller. It's been a system seller all it's game career. OoT = win for 64

 

Maybe XBOX 360, but PS3 is still dominating where Nintendo once stood.

 

Eyes on the prize, Violet. Eyes on the prize.

 

[Lynk Former]

But they should worrying, because they're not stacking up to their competitors.

They aren't? And how would you know this? Just because it's general public opinion from a specific group of people. Yes, it is true that Nintendo aren't for the techy type of people. But that's okay because that isn't Nintendo's target audience. And because of that Nintendo is focusing on an audience they know they can reach, anyone who likes the Nintendo way of gaming, they are also making efforts to capture new groups of people.

 

TP will cater to fans who won't be getting a Revolution, but where does that put Nintendo?

TP will cater to fans who either have a GCN or Revolution. You make it sound like that if it isn't a Revolution game, no one will buy it. *sighs* I won't bother to continue this line because it's moving from Zelda to overall Nintendo.

 

Finishing off, Nintendo isn't going to die so don't worry, just because Nintendo isn't popular with your friends doesn't mean they're in trouble. Just because Twilight Princess is being released 6 months before the Revolution doesn't mean that no one will buy it.

[ChAiNz.2da]

There are still a lot of games being released right now as we speak, should all of those games be stopped and released for their respective next gen consoles? No, because all consoles (cept maybe the 360) is backwards compatible, you have a library of last generation games ready and able to be played on your new consoles.

 

The Revolution is THE backwards compatible console. I would think that if people are gonna get a Revolution they'd take advantage of the GCN and virtual backwards compatiblity features. It's one of its main selling points, the fact that it has 20 years worth of gaming behind it which includes Twilight Princess.

well, regarding the 360.. their motive on backwards compatibility is questionable... a little excerpt from their press release:

The hard drive might seem like an expensive luxury to some shoppers, particularly those buying for someone else this holiday season, but for current Xbox gamers, it's a critical piece of equipment. Without a hard drive, the Xbox 360 will not be able to play any games from the current Xbox, including the phenomenally successful "Halo 2". - source | additional source

I would think that Nintendo (and possibly others) have that going for them if they include the backwards compatibility by "default" rather than require some optional accessory.. but the pessimistic part of me (or capitalist rather ) would seem to think to either release TP solely for the Revolution or adding bonus options, graphics, etc. for the Revolution version if they decide on a GC release.

 

In any case, die-hard players are going to notice that although they can play TP on a GC, they're going to be "missing something" by not getting a Revolution... either way, it's $$$ for the Corp...