Gamecube sales fall a whopping 60% from last year! [Archive]

ThaMaskedGamer

10-08-2005, 08:18 AM

According to a Gamespot article a Nintendo exec(Gadfly you can wet your pants now) the Gamecube is near its life-span. He says the system is sinking, it only sold 15-17 million units worldwide, depending on who u ask. I'm gonna guess the number is closer to 15, its funny how when sales news is negative they can't get real specific with numbers. Anyway, the most interesting tidbit is that year over year sales decreased by 60% from the same period last year. And Gadfly and Trebor keep telling us the GC isn't dead, that this generation isn't over. Well, the generation may not be over for XBOX, but it is for PS2 and GC. Gadfly has the nerve to sit here and say GC did better than XBOX and was a better gaming platform with a bigger variety of games. You can see he is just a delirious fanboy, Nintendo got shelled in the home console business this time around. And going into the next generation with this kind of track record is simply going to be a big hurdle to overcome.

They are smart to try and shift the focus to the Revolution, but the facts remain the same, Nintendo won't have enough good games to float a new console for 5 years. People say MS is ending this generation too soon. But my point is this, the PS2 and GC may not be officially ended, but they are effectively OVER. The XBOX may be officially ended, but it is effectively still ACTIVE.

Some people like to talk about innovation, and great games, but it is all a facade or just a well kept secret, or just a perceived image that doesn't match reality, but some people just can't accept reality. Some people will say, Nintendo is profitable(thanks to accidental currency hedging) yeah that's true. But as their new hardware development cost hit the books, and as sales continue to sink, we will see how long that last. But bravo, profitability is great, but a good business is better. Profitibility is great for the investors, but some good games in 2005 would be good for gamers. People are talking about PGR3 framerates or lack of 50 players in PD0, while the Nintendo can't even get Zelda ready for XMAS.

The last good console Nintendo had was SNES. They would be wise to bail out and focus on handheld's before they lose that domain too. Become a software seller. Leverage your products on PS3 and 360, you will sell tons more copies than just on your own machine, while shedding cost. You could possibly rival EA. But, instead, that stupid pride is just too strong, like a big anchor bringing the whole ship to a grinding halt. I challenge any Nintendo fan, Trebor, Gadfly tell me what is the upside of Nintendo continuing in the home hardware business?

The only thing that surprises me is why PS2 hasn't tanked in game sales as bad as GC has. I guess their fans are a little more resilient and as long as there is games or garbage being released their fans will slop it up, regardless of the quality. Which actually makes them dumber than Nintendo fans.

Gadfly2317

10-08-2005, 08:46 AM

I challenge any Nintendo fan, Trebor, Gadfly tell me what is the upside of Nintendo continuing in the home hardware business?

I thought all systems sales were down because saturation and the gen is almost over. Yes, Xbox is over in November, but we all know that all consoles are nearing their end. Japan is in lull, and both handhelds are outselling even the almighty Ps2 there.

Your advice for Nintendo is abjectly retarded. Sell their software on 360? Why? THIS year, the one you are quoting the reduced systems sales for, Nintendo has sold more first party software than MS. And some of the coolest software this gen is yet to come--stuff like Odama, Twilight Princess, Fire Emblem, Mario Strikers. Nintendo posted profits, and has increased profit forecasts because of DS sales and the weakening yen--PROFIT ESTIMATES HAVE DOUBLED. See link and story below.

MS lost a billion dollars this year....again. THAT's the model you are encouraging Nintendo to follow?

I'll concede that Gamecube has had a weaker year than previous years as Nintendo has shifted development resources to Rev and DS. That's just the way it is. This has been the year of third parties on all systems. Ultimate Spiderman is probably the biggest seller on the 'cube right now.

And while I know it boils down to taste and preference, and that I'm sure you enjoy the Xbox more, I stick to my assertion that the gamecube has more originality and diversity in its line-up than the Xbox, and for me that is more fun. There is NOTHING like Animal Crossing on Xbox, nothing like Pikmin. Nothing like Odama. Nothing like Fire Emblem. Nothing like Tales of Symphonia. Yet on Gamecube, just like Xbox, I can still race cars and shoot guns at people in a first person perspective. There may not be a DEPTH of racing and shooting, but there are more kinds of game experiences for gamers who like doing something different.

You want them to go third party? Barf. They are the ONLY company introducing a real hardware innovation--why should the profitable Nintendo be constrained and limited to putting out software on the unimaginative TrashBox and be stuck paying royalties to the unprofitable MS games division? Your business analysis skills STINK.

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=12102

Nintendo raises profit estimates to 36 billion Yen
Paul Loughrey 16:27 07/10/2005
Positive forecast despite slow sales of GameCube in North America

Nintendo has released its first half sales figures, which showed a 6.9 percent sales drop as the GameCube underperformed estimats, but a weakened Yen and growing DS sales have almost doubled profit estimates.

The drop in sales, from an estimated 190 billion Yen to 175 billion Yen was attributed largely to the poor sales of GameCube hardware and software, as third party developers focus their attention on creating new titles for the next generation consoles (including Nintendo Revolution).

Nintendo's senior marketing director Yoshihiro Mori commented: "The big drop for GameCube games was in North America. It looks like the product's life is nearing its end."

In spite of this, sales of the company's handheld device, Nintendo DS have helped boost profits worldwide. In addition, a weaker exchange rate for the Yen has offset the drop in sales, allowing the company to retain its revenue forecasts and increase estimates for the full fiscal year.

Mori stated: "Offsetting the profit shortfall caused by lower sales, a substantial amount of foreign exchange gain was generated due to the weaker-than-estimated Japanese Yen."

Nintendo claims that a substantial development investment in its forthcoming next generation console, the Revolution, has also damaged margins. The new machine is expected to launch in Japan in the spring of 2006; competing with Microsoft's Xbox 360 and Sony's PS3 consoles.

While the GameCube may be nearing the end of its life cycle, and poor sales of both hardware and software have lowered sales figures for the company, increasing sales of its DS handheld are helping to offset the shortfall. In addition, Nintendo holds around USD 4.7 billion worth of dollar-denominated deposits, which have clearly helped revenue forecasts and overall profits, due to the fluctuations in the exchange rate for the Yen.

Gadfly2317

10-08-2005, 08:54 AM

I challenge any Nintendo fan, Trebor, Gadfly tell me what is the upside of Nintendo continuing in the home hardware business?

My condensed answer for the reading impared: Because they make great games, original games, games like no one else makes, and there are enough people that want to play those games that to keep Nintendo profitable--profitable enough to keep putting out those games. The stunning originality and success of the DS foreshadows what we can expect with the Revolution.

Knowing how to design hardware and run a business efficiently doesn't hurt either.

Gadfly2317

10-08-2005, 09:03 AM

Also just out of curiosity. . . did Xbox sell more systems this year than last year? Or did they sell fewer?

slade

10-08-2005, 09:19 AM

But my point is this, the PS2 and GC may not be officially ended, but they are effectively OVER. The XBOX may be officially ended, but it is effectively still ACTIVE.

LMAO!!!!! You logic or lack thereof never fails to astound.

The only thing that surprises me is why PS2 hasn't tanked in game sales as bad as GC has. I guess their fans are a little more resilient and as long as there is games or garbage being released their fans will slop it up, regardless of the quality. Which actually makes them dumber than Nintendo fans.

Haha, Christmas 2005 is going to be hot for the PS2. I'd put most of the games being released for the PS2 now against the best 360 has to offer, and the PS2 would win. It's the reason I'm still sticking with the current generation.

shogun

10-08-2005, 09:55 AM

telling us the GC isn't dead, that this generation isn't over. Well, the generation may not be over for XBOX, but it is for PS2 and GC.

The only thing that surprises me is why PS2 hasn't tanked in game sales as bad as GC has. I guess their fans are a little more resilient and as long as there is games or garbage being released their fans will slop it up, regardless of the quality. Which actually makes them dumber than Nintendo fans.

I took a gander at the ebgames release list and found (surprise surpise) that XBox has 119 new items coming out versus PS2's 163. What's even more interesting is that the much of that gap starts forming after November (gee what happens in November?). Regardless of if you think PS2's lineup is "crap", this doesn't seem to fit into your profession that "XBox has life in it that PS2 doesn't." I'm actually looking at buying a PS2 again, simply to offset the lack of good XBox games coming out.

GamerToday

10-08-2005, 10:10 AM

Hey Nintendo Fanboys:

Where is Nintendo so called leader innovation? Nintendo can not innovate, they either copy and improve. Worst, Take credit for other people work.

Nintendo has made several mistake with Gamecube. Nintendo will do the same with Revolution.

As for Nintendo Handhelds, No more Monopolies. Sony PSP and others will destroy Nintendo monopoly. A Monopoly by pure Luck, Racketering, Bullying, and other horrible business practice.

Superior Beatslayer

10-08-2005, 10:58 AM

My condensed answer for the reading impared: Because they make great games, original games, games like no one else makes, and there are enough people that want to play those games that to keep Nintendo profitable--profitable enough to keep putting out those games. The stunning originality and success of the DS foreshadows what we can expect with the Revolution.

Knowing how to design hardware and run a business efficiently doesn't hurt either.

Thanks for that man, when I saw your first reply I was completely intimidated and almost died trying to read it. But I do acknowledge Nintendo, I like how original and fun their games are, their ideas are usually very creative and innovative. Thats why this Gen its 360 and GC/Rev for me.(i might be getting a gc soon)

P.S
GO SENS GO MOTTA****AS!!! WOOT!

Jupiter_x

10-08-2005, 08:17 PM

Thanks for that man, when I saw your first reply I was completely intimidated and almost died trying to read it. But I do acknowledge Nintendo, I like how original and fun their games are, their ideas are usually very creative and innovative. Thats why this Gen its 360 and GC/Rev for me.(i might be getting a gc soon)

P.S
GO SENS GO MOTTA****AS!!! WOOT!

Dude, I like your attitude. You, Shogun and Fiveski are the 3 Xbox gamers I respect!

Jupiter_x

10-08-2005, 08:24 PM

Haha, Christmas 2005 is going to be hot for the PS2. I'd put most of the games being released for the PS2 now against the best 360 has to offer, and the PS2 would win. It's the reason I'm still sticking with the current generation.

Exactly! I am very happy to have my PS2....this holliday will pwn! PS2 will never die!

ThaMaskedGamer

10-09-2005, 06:52 AM

I thought all systems sales were down because saturation and the gen is almost over. Yes, Xbox is over in November, but we all know that all consoles are nearing their end. Japan is in lull, and both handhelds are outselling even the almighty Ps2 there.

Your advice for Nintendo is abjectly retarded. Sell their software on 360? Why? THIS year, the one you are quoting the reduced systems sales for, Nintendo has sold more first party software than MS. And some of the coolest software this gen is yet to come--stuff like Odama, Twilight Princess, Fire Emblem, Mario Strikers. Nintendo posted profits, and has increased profit forecasts because of DS sales and the weakening yen--PROFIT ESTIMATES HAVE DOUBLED. See link and story below.

MS lost a billion dollars this year....again. THAT's the model you are encouraging Nintendo to follow?

I'll concede that Gamecube has had a weaker year than previous years as Nintendo has shifted development resources to Rev and DS. That's just the way it is. This has been the year of third parties on all systems. Ultimate Spiderman is probably the biggest seller on the 'cube right now.

And while I know it boils down to taste and preference, and that I'm sure you enjoy the Xbox more, I stick to my assertion that the gamecube has more originality and diversity in its line-up than the Xbox, and for me that is more fun. There is NOTHING like Animal Crossing on Xbox, nothing like Pikmin. Nothing like Odama. Nothing like Fire Emblem. Nothing like Tales of Symphonia. Yet on Gamecube, just like Xbox, I can still race cars and shoot guns at people in a first person perspective. There may not be a DEPTH of racing and shooting, but there are more kinds of game experiences for gamers who like doing something different.

You want them to go third party? Barf. They are the ONLY company introducing a real hardware innovation--why should the profitable Nintendo be constrained and limited to putting out software on the unimaginative TrashBox and be stuck paying royalties to the unprofitable MS games division? Your business analysis skills STINK.

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=12102

Nintendo raises profit estimates to 36 billion Yen
Paul Loughrey 16:27 07/10/2005
Positive forecast despite slow sales of GameCube in North America

Nintendo has released its first half sales figures, which showed a 6.9 percent sales drop as the GameCube underperformed estimats, but a weakened Yen and growing DS sales have almost doubled profit estimates.

The drop in sales, from an estimated 190 billion Yen to 175 billion Yen was attributed largely to the poor sales of GameCube hardware and software, as third party developers focus their attention on creating new titles for the next generation consoles (including Nintendo Revolution).

Nintendo's senior marketing director Yoshihiro Mori commented: "The big drop for GameCube games was in North America. It looks like the product's life is nearing its end."

In spite of this, sales of the company's handheld device, Nintendo DS have helped boost profits worldwide. In addition, a weaker exchange rate for the Yen has offset the drop in sales, allowing the company to retain its revenue forecasts and increase estimates for the full fiscal year.

Mori stated: "Offsetting the profit shortfall caused by lower sales, a substantial amount of foreign exchange gain was generated due to the weaker-than-estimated Japanese Yen."

Nintendo claims that a substantial development investment in its forthcoming next generation console, the Revolution, has also damaged margins. The new machine is expected to launch in Japan in the spring of 2006; competing with Microsoft's Xbox 360 and Sony's PS3 consoles.

While the GameCube may be nearing the end of its life cycle, and poor sales of both hardware and software have lowered sales figures for the company, increasing sales of its DS handheld are helping to offset the shortfall. In addition, Nintendo holds around USD 4.7 billion worth of dollar-denominated deposits, which have clearly helped revenue forecasts and overall profits, due to the fluctuations in the exchange rate for the Yen.

There was a decline in hardware sales across all three systems. That is inevitable at the end of life cycles, as you know. This was a 60% drop in software sales, which is not inevitable. Not that a drop in software sales year over year is abnormal, but 60%. I mean taking 60% of sales away from a console that was already in third place in games sold, is like the Olsen Twin losing 60 pounds!

Any of course, to you their greatest fan, the year wasn't so bad at all. I don't doubt your loyalty for one second and asking you questions about Nintendo is really not an exercise designed to elicit a rational answer, rather an opportunity to see how extreme your support is. Even in the most dire situation, you still think its allllll good!

Of course I knew you would say Nintendo should stay the course and of course you think the magic controller is all that is required to right the ship. And your loyalty is matched only by Nintendo's pride. Notice how strongly you reject the proposal, calling it retarded, as if it weren't even a valid consideration. There is no need to do any further analysis of the issue with you, if you think the idea "retarded." In due time, we will see how Nintendo fares in the home console business.

ThaMaskedGamer

10-09-2005, 06:58 AM

LMAO!!!!! You logic or lack thereof never fails to astound.

Haha, Christmas 2005 is going to be hot for the PS2. I'd put most of the games being released for the PS2 now against the best 360 has to offer, and the PS2 would win. It's the reason I'm still sticking with the current generation.

Yeah Slade, PS2 can't even outperform the XBOX library. Now its games are gonna be better than 360. Gadfly is loyal, you are just dumb. I'm sorry, but these kinda statements completely lack any signs of intelligence or life. PS2 games are gonna be better than 360. Hmmm, well, there is precedence for an existing console to have superior games than new hardware. I seem to think that happen when PS2 launched. The DC games were far superior and the PS2 went on to win the console war. Well, I hope things aren't quite that good for 360 in that case. I'd rather have truly good games than the ability to say "rah rah we are in first place." Man u come up with some nutball comments, "Onimusha is better than Ninja Gaiden...PS2 will better than the best 360 has to offer." You are dead to yourself, is more like it.

ThaMaskedGamer

10-09-2005, 07:00 AM

I took a gander at the ebgames release list and found (surprise surpise) that XBox has 119 new items coming out versus PS2's 163. What's even more interesting is that the much of that gap starts forming after November (gee what happens in November?). Regardless of if you think PS2's lineup is "crap", this doesn't seem to fit into your profession that "XBox has life in it that PS2 doesn't." I'm actually looking at buying a PS2 again, simply to offset the lack of good XBox games coming out.

PS2 has never been lacking in quantity. It is however lacking in the other category.

ThaMaskedGamer

10-09-2005, 07:02 AM

slade

10-09-2005, 07:41 AM

blah blah blah.

You make me tired with your irrefutable logic.

Gadfly2317

10-09-2005, 09:58 AM

Gadfly is loyal, you are just dumb.

I know this is an aside to the issue you raised, but I'm not loyal. Take the N64 with its retarded stubborn sticking to cartridges, which was hugely limiting. . . to me, the possibilities opened by disk medium in Ps1, and the huge shift in game support caused me to almost completely ignore Nintendo for that entire generation (aside from the few weeks I borrowed one to play Ocarina of Time, the greatest game of all time.) I gamed on Ps1 almost exclusively. Nintendo was essentially creatively dead; I mean, not only was third party support weaker than with gamecube, their first party creativity was in a rut too outside a couple titles that changed the face of gaming. Even their handheld offerings were weak. I only picked up an N64 when Ps2 launched to play the few good titles on N64 while waiting to see what the Xbox and GC were going to be like.

Nintendo changed a lot of things it was doing wrong, started doing a lot of new things right, and put out some of the best, most original software of the last few years, and their philosophy matches mine. That's why I'm in the Nintendo camp for now. I think after SNES and their 2 generations of dominance they got fat, lazy and stupid, but being down and having to compete has revitalized the company. That's part of why I'm so glad the PsP came along; not only is the PsP really cool, but its kicked Nintendo in the ass and their handheld offerings have improved massively.

If Rev sucks, if the controller is only used for Mario Fishing, and the games bore me, I will move on. But I'm so sold on Nintendo right now because the games I most enjoyed this gen were on GC, and the brilliance of the DS and ballsy move with the Rev are the kind of things I'd like to see being done in this industry. I'm not loyal. If Sony or MS were doing this, providing me with this kind of gaming, that's where I'd be, and that's who I'd be praising.

Back to topic at hand and falling software and system sales--as far as I can tell, that's happening across all systems, especially in Japan. It's the cycle of generations. Like you said. But you competely avoided the point that Nintendo sold more first party software this year than MS and made profits where the MS games division lost a billion dollars. Why does this matter? Because even though Nintendo will not have as much third party support, it will not have the QUANTITY of titles, it will continue to be able to put out quality games--hopefully continue to put out the kind of original groovy off-beat games I like to play.

At this point, if you want to claim Nintendo the loser next gen, forever relegated to third place, that's fine. Nintendo is likely to stay in third, even though I suppose there's a razor thin chance Nintendo could rise again, especially in more sophisticated non-North America markets. I'm just saying, they are a great company, they are doing things right and putting out killer games and running their business in a sustainable profitable way, even if they aren't putting out the GTA's and Halo's that are currently what generates massive first place sales. As long as they are profitable making great games, they will continue to make games.

So your delirious jerk-off fantasies of a gaming world with no-Nintendo in it are just that. Jerk off fantasies.

Superior Beatslayer

10-09-2005, 11:16 AM

Great Nintendo still has 3 fans left.

HaHa! Well I would hardly consider myself a Nintendo fan, I'm actually more of a MS fan because I actually own a Xbox and plan to own a 360 in the near future. I like Nintendo because I get a kick out of some of thier games, I think SSBM has pretty much its own genre, maybe something I little more than your basic fighter, and great characters that you love seeing kicking eachothers asses. If Revolution is at $99 I might just pick one up along with my 360. So you TMG, there was really no need for your sarcastic comment, your the only person on this board that has ever reffered to me as a Nintendo fanboy.

theWacoKid

10-09-2005, 11:37 AM

What a boring and ridiculous thread. GC sales are bad in NA, they're even worse in japan. No zelda is going to kill whatever hope nintendo had for a holiday season for the gc. Nintendo's console business has been in decline ever since the n64 debuted. Conversely, more and more of their efforts are going towards their lucrative and profitable handheld business.

Nintendo's entire business plan rests on bringing low cost to develop projects to market. If they don't cost them a lot to develop they don't have to have blockbuster sales to generate profits. The handhelds fit this philosophy perfectlly, low cost to develop with meager production values and a younger less critical gaming audience. The gc is a console and gamers are fed up with nintendo's chintzy low production value games, where characters still speak with stupid little text bubbles abover their head. Nintendo's supposed creativity is all centered on maintaining low production values, so like the DS we'll throw in an interesting gimmick with the rev to distract you from the fact that the games will look and sound inferior to the competition.

But, none of this is news, and gc sales doing badlly is not news, its to be expected. Software sells hardware, and the gc has had a whole pile of nothing for a while. But, nintendo still makes money. Japan right now, is all about the handhelds, they're currently destroying the console market in sales. So, you'd have to say that nintendo is currently doing the best in the market segment that's doing the best, which is not a bad place to be.

Why haven't ps2 sales tanked? Because they still put out some pretty good games, no matter what your pea-sized brain thinks. This consistently moronic stance you take, that there's nothing worth playing on the ps2 with how many games available on the system, makes you look like the proverbial ass-clown. Regardless of how retrograde the ps2 hardware might be and its very definitely dated, the games, they just keep on a coming. There's a steady supply of games that drop in price that people missed out on the first go round. There's simply a lot of software out for the system and games like We love Katamari, Sly 3 and Shadow of the Colossus aren't on the other systems, and sorry, TMG, but check gamerankings, oh, clueless one, these games aren't garbage, they're scoring very respectably.

The only signifcant thing I see with the latest round of dismal sales for the gc is that now nintendo execs are admitting that the gc is kaputski. I could've told you that a while back.

ThaMaskedGamer

10-10-2005, 06:12 AM

What a boring and ridiculous thread........ Then it should fit right in with all the others lately.


Nintendo's entire business plan rests on bringing low cost to develop projects to market........ Hmmm yeah so I guess Zelda is being pushed back to 2006 to make it even cheaper, as well as Metroid Prime Hunters for the DS.

But, none of this is news, and gc sales doing badlly is not news, its to be expected.......
GC sales doing bad is not news, and every other day you yahoos are telling us how great the GC library is. Well something isn't matching up here. Either the games suck or the GC consumers are just stupid for passing by all these great games. And if the GC sales are expected to be bad, does that mean the Revolution will have the same expectations? Hmmm, so tell us again Gadfly why Nintendo shouldn't get outta hardware and go third party? Because this isn't making sense.


Why haven't ps2 sales tanked? Because they still put out some pretty good games, no matter what your pea-sized brain thinks......... Yeah I've looked at Gamerankings and I haven't seen anything close to a 90% rated game in a while. I don't even see much rated 85%. So I guess a lot of reviewers out there have pea sized brains. Consumers also cause the last time I looked PS2 didn't have anything in the top 10 aside from Madden and other 3rd party stuff.


There's simply a lot of software out for the system............................................ ..Yeah a lot of crap, a bunch of crap doesn't make quality.


The only signifcant thing I see with the latest round of dismal sales for the gc is that now nintendo execs are admitting that the gc is kaputski. I could've told you that a while back. No, I told you that a while back. And the GC pimps on this site kept saying the GC library is still better than XBOX.

Gadfly2317

10-10-2005, 06:25 AM

so tell us again Gadfly why Nintendo shouldn't get outta hardware and go third party? Because this isn't making sense.

Why should anyone tell you again when you weren't smart enough to comprehend it the first time?

I guess we can try, 'cause it's really simple. Nintendo has been making games and game hardware far longer than Sony or MS. It is all they do. They are a game company, and they are still a profitable game company. There is zero reason for Nintendo to put out its games on someone elses systems and pay royalties to MS or Sony. That's just so monkey-f@#k insane. . . I can't even comprehend what the hell is wrong with you.

If you'll notice, Nintendo's hardware is significantly different than the Business Software Company and the Electornics/Movie company they are competing against. Nintendo is designing hardware with specific advances in gameplay in mind. The other guys are just throwing more polygons and special effects at us. MS is just copying Sony--they both offer essentially the same thing, except PS3 is better, making 360 obsolete. Nintendo presents a true alternative. If they folded up shop as you suggest, there would be no real diversity or choice in console gaming--it would just be Sony and the secondrate inferior copycat.

Mochan

10-10-2005, 06:57 AM

ThaMaskedGamer

10-10-2005, 07:00 AM

Why should anyone tell you again when you weren't smart enough to comprehend it the first time?

I guess we can try, 'cause it's really simple. Nintendo has been making games and game hardware far longer than Sony or MS. It is all they do. They are a game company, and they are still a profitable game company. There is zero reason for Nintendo to put out its games on someone elses systems and pay royalties to MS or Sony. That's just so monkey-f@#k insane. . . I can't even comprehend what the hell is wrong with you.

If you'll notice, Nintendo's hardware is significantly different than the Business Software Company and the Electornics/Movie company they are competing against. Nintendo is designing hardware with specific advances in gameplay in mind. The other guys are just throwing more polygons and special effects at us. MS is just copying Sony--they both offer essentially the same thing, except PS3 is better, making 360 obsolete. Nintendo presents a true alternative. If they folded up shop as you suggest, there would be no real diversity or choice in console gaming--it would just be Sony and the secondrate inferior copycat.

Lofty goals for such a legendary company. Let's face facts, the last good console was the SNES. N64 was whack and the GC is adysmal failure. The only feather in Nintendo's cap is profitability, something that must be more important to Nintendo gamers than good games. So Nintendo is profitable because of handhelds, and a lucky money hedging gamble, not because of the GC. The GC is a drag on those precious profits. Nintendo still has some interesting intellectual property that is could leverage. Metroid and Zelda are still popular(until Nintendo run them into the ground like Mario), so is Super Smash Brothers, they could easily triple their sales on the PS3 and wipe out all the hardware costs and only be left with the costs to develop the games.

Essentially, like u said, the platform is only for 1st party games. You don't have a console only for 1st party games, that is stupid. Their games won't lose their identity on another system, or on other systems. They aren't like Sega whose brand names aren't nearly as strong or leveraged and Sega has kinda floated off the radar. You are a prideful fool to see that Nintendo's console games would be better off on other machines. If the idea is getting more users and more profits. What is it going to take, desperation. Obviously, the answer is yes. I mean this argument is all for naught, the Revolution will be here. But at the end of its life cycle, the answer will be obvious that Nintendo must go 3rd party.

I thought there was a role for Nintendo, and for 3 consoles, but that was before Nintendo took the low-ball, low-tech route. They are definitely following through with this "simple games is the key" philosophy and that more than anything is what is going to kill them. Kids aren't crying for simple games. Kids are more sophisticated that older gamers when it comes to gaming technology. So they are going to alienate their last stronghold in the marketplace, in an attempt to lure what? 30 year old women. Meanwhile all the kids are going to flock to the ultrasophisticated(I guess now anything with a controller and good graphics has become too hard, go figure) super complex 360 and PS3. This is a bad business strategy. It might work moderately well in Japan, but in the U.S. it just ain't gonna work. Don't get me wrong, there will be an initial spike in interest especially if the price is $99, they might move some hardware(I would hope so if that is the price, why not just give it away), but just like the initial spike in the GC, there will not be a corresponding increase in software sales. And the Revy won't jump out as fast as GC did cause expectations are so low. People didn't have low expectations with GC. But they have them with Revy. And that is generally not a good idea, to create low expectations for your product.

ThaMaskedGamer

10-10-2005, 07:06 AM

GC may be over but the PS2 is still going. I just finished the latest major RPG from Squenix (Radiata Stories) and there are 2 titles this month alone that I want to get (Suiko Tactics and Kagero 2) and they only make up like 5% of the total releases for the month in North America. And let's not even get into the succeeding months! Even more bigname titles there.

On the other hand, Xbox is releasing just one last big bunch this month and next, and thereon afterwards we see nothing but flies buzzing around.

PS2 has much life left in it, thank you. And no, XBox does not have a bigger variety of games. Xbox may be officially ended but active, but PS2 is officially still going and a lot more active.

I would say the same of XBots! Back at you!

So sorry if the only way you can enjoy a game is when a reviewer stamps a 90% on it. But I guess that's the be expected from a pea-sized brain

You don't remember the early days of the XBOX when it wasn't getting 90% ratings. We were trying to tell gamers that the games were fun and good for a variety of reasons, but the idiots on this site were adamant that unless it got 90%, it wasn't a good game. So 90% was the de facto standard, and the only objective standard that can be used. Now, of course, over the last 3 years PS2 has been bottoming out in the rankings, and that same crew wants to change the standard to something more subject.

Fact is though, nobody is rating your games high and nobody is buying them either. Your little J-RPGs won't even crack the top 50. The PS2 is a mainstream machine for 3rd party stuff.

XBOX has plenty of stuff left in fact I completely forgot about the sequel to Full Spectrum Warrior, a game that was PORTED to the PC, if I seem to recall.

I also want to go on record saying the PS3 will not have nearly as many J-RPG that are turned based next go round. I think the only reason why turnbased is still prevalent is the PS2 technology sucks. And of course, next gen everyone will love realtime rpgs.

Gadfly2317

10-10-2005, 07:30 AM

TMG, you are simply wrong. And you have the gall to call Mochan a forum Rookie (or "rooking" as you said. . .I assume you meant rookie) when you yourself are one of the most limited narrow minded gamers here. I guess there's not much point in digressing too much further; we'll just have to wait and see when the systems arrive.

But your one thing, about "third rate" and "low-ball tech" and "creating low expectations". . . the main thing I would say is that the tech isn't low, its just they are going a different route with a different kind of tech, and I would say that people have pretty high interest and high expectations of this tech. Just because you aren't interested doesn't mean a lot of gamers aren't. Did you not notice after TGS how the Rev (and MGS4) were the two top stories on pretty much every gaming site in the world? It wasn't the 360. . . even though that system is launching next month.

trebor

10-10-2005, 07:42 AM

I challenge any Nintendo fan, Trebor, Gadfly tell me what is the upside of Nintendo continuing in the home hardware business?

Mmmm....gosh, well, I think I'm up to your challenge here, even if it is going to be a real toughy, a barn-burner if you will.

Let's see, what is the upside of Nitendo continuing in the home hardware business?

Ok, let's focus on that word "business". Now, I'm going to speak generally here, but generally speaking the ultimate goal in business is to make money, a "profit" if you will. So, using my above-average reading skills, I've determined that despite a "whopping 60% fall from last year", Nintendo's profits are actually higher then projected.

Hmmmm....Nintendo is profitable. That is a hard concept to digest, isn't it?

Want to know something that is going to be even harder to digest? Nintendo probably made more profits in the last year, despite the 60% dropoff, then the Xbox has made M$ in it's entire lifespan. Wow.

So, to sum up, as long as Nintendo is profitable, it makes sense for them to stay in the hardware business. As long as they still produce games that I want to play, it makes sense for me personally to buy Nintendo games.

Now, let me ask you "theMaskedGamer", given that M$ has lost roughly 4 billion dollars on the Xbox so far, tell me what is the upside of M$ continuing in the home hardware business?

Shouldn't they drop their hardware and become a 3rd party publisher, publishing games for the PS3 and Revolution, since they can't make a profit in the hardware business?

Gadfly2317

10-10-2005, 07:52 AM

Want to know something that is going to be even harder to digest? Nintendo probably made more profits in the last year, despite the 60% dropoff, then the Xbox has made M$ in it's entire lifespan. Wow.[/b]
Probably? The GC made more profit last week than the Xbox made in its entire lifespan. FOUR BILLION DOLLARS!!!! Can TMG comprehend how much money that is, or that even if MS can start making a profit next gen on 360 how many years--how many GENERATIONS--it will likely take for them to make those losses back?

Now, let me ask you "theMaskedGamer", given that M$ has lost roughly 4 billion dollars on the Xbox so far, tell me what is the upside of M$ continuing in the home hardware business?

MASKED GAMER. . . PLEASE ANSWER THIS QUESTION. That makes perfect sense. Since MS doesn't know how to make hardware (they are, and have always been a software company that's failed everytime its tried its hand at any type of hardware). .. WHY SHOULD THEY CONTINUE IN THE GAME HARDWARE BUSINESS WHEN THEY CAN'T MAKE ANY MONEY AT IT???

Mochan

10-10-2005, 07:57 AM

I also want to go on record saying the PS3 will not have nearly as many J-RPG that are turned based next go round. I think the only reason why turnbased is still prevalent is the PS2 technology sucks. And of course, next gen everyone will love realtime rpgs.

FF12 is going to be realtime, or some weird form of it. More and more RPGs are going real time: Tales series, Star Ocean, Radiata Stories, Ys. And guess what? These are all games on the PS2.

No, it's not the tech of the PS2 (bad as it is) that is the limiting factor, it's just that the Japanese RPG mindset is stuck in the rut of turn-based, where it's been for like two decades. It's a good model, one that worked, and although dated it's not necessarily a bad model.

I actually have a preference for Real Time RPGs, which is why I scrambled to borrow my friend's Gamecube just to play Tales of Symphonia. Which is why I am so disappointed that Tales just can't seem to break into the US market -- such that we had to skip out on Tales of Destiny 2 (Ggrrrr!).

However I do not like Bioware RPGs whether they are turn-based or not, they just do not appeal to me for various reasons, so no do not bring up KOTOR in an argument on this matter please.

As for the 90%, so if this is the standard here then so be it, but I cannot stand by and watch somebody lambast my hobby and call it crap when he himself has admitted to not playing them at all. At least when I lambast the XBox library I've played them (either on the Box itself or the PC versions of the games) so I know what I'm talking about.

theWacoKid

10-10-2005, 11:55 AM

Yeah I've looked at Gamerankings and I haven't seen anything close to a 90% rated game in a while. I don't even see much rated 85%. So I guess a lot of reviewers out there have pea sized brains.

Well, having a pea sized brain like yours not only impairs the thought process and judgement, but also does things to your visual acuity. We love Katamari, 87%, Sly 3, 84%, Shadow of the Colossus, 89%. You were saying. All ps2 exclusive games that I specifically named in my previous post. Hey, what can this board expect from a guy pimping out Marvel Nemesis as his personal GOTM. Marvel Nemesis you defend, and you expect anyone to take you seriously when it comes to choices in gaming. Crawl back in that hole of yours, TMG and don't come out for a while. If you're going to defend mediocre licenced crap like MN, you have no business criticizing anybody's choice in games or systems. Those three ps2 games I listed piss all over Marvel Nemesis, a steaming pile clocking in with a 64% ranking. But, according to you, we should forget about GR on this one, and trust your judgement instead. LMAO, yea, there's a good one.

slade

10-10-2005, 12:45 PM

You don't remember the early days of the XBOX when it wasn't getting 90% ratings. We were trying to tell gamers that the games were fun and good for a variety of reasons, but the idiots on this site were adamant that unless it got 90%, it wasn't a good game. So 90% was the de facto standard, and the only objective standard that can be used. Now, of course, over the last 3 years PS2 has been bottoming out in the rankings, and that same crew wants to change the standard to something more subject.

Hey, how about that prelim 90 percent for Socom 3 on Gamerankings. You remember Socom 3, right? It's a sequel to a series that is better then everything ever released for X-box Live.

Superior Beatslayer

10-10-2005, 01:14 PM

Now, let me ask you "theMaskedGamer", given that M$ has lost roughly 4 billion dollars on the Xbox so far, tell me what is the upside of M$ continuing in the home hardware business?

Shouldn't they drop their hardware and become a 3rd party publisher, publishing games for the PS3 and Revolution, since they can't make a profit in the hardware business?

Now, thats a good ****in question! Because as much as like the Xbox and it's games, I KNOW that one of the reasons why Xbox didn't pull a Sega Dreamcast is because Gates (the richest man) is behind it.

ThaMaskedGamer

10-10-2005, 10:21 PM

GC may be over but the PS2 is still going. I just finished the latest major RPG from Squenix (Radiata Stories)... LMAO dude u can not be serious. This is what you call still going strong? This game is pulling 74% on gamerankings and the graphics may the Dreamcast look like a supercomputer. See this is what i'm saying, you guys call this stuff quality, but it isn't. Its cool if you personally like it though. <a href="http://ps2.ign.com/articles/647/647902p1.html">Mochan's Game</a>. See i'm sorry in this day and age of technology, I can't take a game like this seriously. And I can't believe you could diss Half-life 1, and be playing games like this. Half-life at the time it was released was the baddest game out, nothing close, and for anybody to say it wasn't just has no credibility. I mean Half-life 1 back in '98 is a thousand times better than this junk on the PS2.


But and there are 2 titles this month alone that I want to get (Suiko Tactics and Kagero 2) and they only make up like 5% of the total releases for the month in North America. And let's not even get into the succeeding months! Even more bigname titles there. More stinking piles....sorry Mochan those games just don't cut it, they could be PSOne games. I mean at some point you gotta hold the PS2 games to current technological standards. You wouldn't expect to see these kind of games on the PS3 would you? Well, I wouldn't have expected to see them this current generation.


On the other hand, Xbox is releasing just one last big bunch this month and next, and thereon afterwards we see nothing but flies buzzing around.

PS2 has much life left in it, thank you. And no, XBox does not have a bigger variety of games. Xbox may be officially ended but active, but PS2 is officially still going and a lot more active. That isn't true, there are great XBOX games on into 2006. I don't have time to list them for you, I got too many people to reply to, look it up. And I guarantee you the graphics will be better than what my PDA can do.


So sorry if the only way you can enjoy a game is when a reviewer stamps a 90% on it. But I guess that's the be expected from a pea-sized brain. You know, when I say I don't like a game, i'm talking about something like Doom3 for XBOX. There was a game I didn't like. But PS2 games don't even fall into that category, they don't even meet the minimum qualifications as playable. Doom3 craps all over the PS2 library and I don't like, so imagine these crappy games you are trying to pass off as good. I'm surprised they are even scoring in the 70% range on gamerankings. You and everyone else knows that if XBOX released games like that the media would rip 'em to shreds. Not praise 'em as some niche games.

ThaMaskedGamer

10-10-2005, 10:39 PM

TMG, you are simply wrong. And you have the gall to call Mochan a forum Rookie (or "rooking" as you said. . .I assume you meant rookie) when you yourself are one of the most limited narrow minded gamers here. I guess there's not much point in digressing too much further; we'll just have to wait and see when the systems arrive. Good guess. You know I can't wait till this generation is over. Because i'm so sick of the aberation that is the PS2. When the PS3 comes, if it comes, you guys will see that i'm not a Sony hater, as you guys are MS haters. I don't think Sony is some evil company, like you guys do with MS. I just think the PS2 sucks. Look at the link I provided to Mochan's game, Radiata. That is pure garbage man. Before you even get into the gameplay how can that game be taken seriously on a supposedly current generation machine? Its freakin Lego characters damn near the full size of the screen. I'll admit i've been narrow minded, but the PS2 just doesn't meet my minimum standards of playability for most of its games. Most of the games still look worse than dreamcast games. And i'm sorry i'm a graphics and tech whore, yes, if I need to use my imagination that badly to overcome those kind of graphics, I'll just read a damn dungeons and dragons book instead. At least I won't have to make myself overcome horrid graphics and tech. And the GC, if u recall, early on I was praising based on its power. But the problem with GC is that 3rd party support fell to the way side and there simply isn't enough good 1st party games. The GC isn't bad, there just aren't enough games to play on it.


But your one thing, about "third rate" and "low-ball tech" and "creating low expectations". . . the main thing I would say is that the tech isn't low, its just they are going a different route with a different kind of tech, and I would say that people have pretty high interest and high expectations of this tech. Just because you aren't interested doesn't mean a lot of gamers aren't. Did you not notice after TGS how the Rev (and MGS4) were the two top stories on pretty much every gaming site in the world? It wasn't the 360. . . even though that system is launching next month. Right, and just like you aren't interested in the approach 360 is taking, you should be able to understand why i'm not interested in this approach from Nintendo. Nintendo will have to prove it to me, before I fall for the hype. But, it seems like they have made themselves into the PS2. By adopting inferior tech their games, for me, in contrast to PS3 and 360 games, just may not even meet my minimum standards for NextGen. Hopefully that isn't the case. That wasn't the impression I got from their "Broadway and Hollywood" naming conventions. I thought the Rev would be right up their with the other consoles. But it appears that won't be the case, and if not, I will have a hard time taking them seriously. Plus, like I said, the onus is on them to prove to gamers that they are going to have some good stuff.

ThaMaskedGamer

10-10-2005, 10:57 PM

Mmmm....gosh, well, I think I'm up to your challenge here, even if it is going to be a real toughy, a barn-burner if you will. Your attempts to be witty are not successful.


Ok, let's focus on that word "business". Now, I'm going to speak generally here, but generally speaking the ultimate goal in business is to make money, a "profit" if you will. So, using my above-average reading skills, I've determined that despite a "whopping 60% fall from last year", Nintendo's profits are actually higher then projected. No, your reading skills are seemingly somewhere at the middle school level, at best. In fact, none of seem to understand, this is NOT about the handhelds or Nintendo going out of business. This is not about the profits generated by the rest of the company. If your reading skills were decent at the very least, you will notice I said the GC sales dropped 60%. Yes, the DS was extremely profitable and yes despite the poor performing GC profits only fell 6%, that was also due to currency fluctuations a lucky gamble. But this isn't about the DS, so stop playing the shell game.


Want to know something that is going to be even harder to digest? Nintendo probably made more profits in the last year, despite the 60% dropoff, then the Xbox has made M$ in it's entire lifespan. You still can't read. Nintendo didn't have a 60% drop off, the GC did. If Nintendo had a 60% drop off their shareholder's would be revolting. Don't brag about your intelligence when you can't even properly read a paragraph. Damn, the heading is bold text, GAMECUBE SALES FALL......


So, to sum up, as long as Nintendo is profitable, it makes sense for them to stay in the hardware business.... By now you should see that you are a complete jag-off. Let's sum up what you are actually saying, the handheld business is generating record profits, but the CONSOLE BUSINESS is generating LOSSES, so it makes perfect sense to stay in the HARDWARE BUSINESS. I'll say it once more, Nintendo should stop making home CONSOLES, not handhelds.

Nintendo claims that a substantial development investment in its forthcoming next generation console, the Revolution, has also damaged margins. The new machine is expected to launch in Japan in the spring of 2006; competing with Microsoft's Xbox 360 and Sony's PS3 consoles.

While the GameCube may be nearing the end of its life cycle, and poor sales of both hardware and software have lowered sales figures for the company, increasing sales of its DS handheld are helping to offset the shortfall.Now, if you can't understand that the GC is already a drag on sales, and that the Revy just might be also, and that they probably have no shot in hell to capture 2nd or 1st place in the console business, why stay in it? Especially when they could rake in the profits by putting their software on the PS3 and 360. So that their console software sales can ADD to the DS and handheld profits. Do you need a Powerpoint presentation?

ThaMaskedGamer

10-10-2005, 11:56 PM

Probably? The GC made more profit last week than the Xbox made in its entire lifespan. FOUR BILLION DOLLARS!!!! Can TMG comprehend how much money that is, or that even if MS can start making a profit next gen on 360 how many years--how many GENERATIONS--it will likely take for them to make those losses back? Okay, so how much profit did the GC make? Not last week, but i'll take any current quarterly or annual data. I understand the XBOX has been a money loser, but I want to see where GC is now profitable. If it is profitable then that is a hell of a feat, to be able to lose 60% of your sales revenue and still be profitable. I'll tip my hat to them if that is the case.


MASKED GAMER. . . PLEASE ANSWER THIS QUESTION. That makes perfect sense. Since MS doesn't know how to make hardware (they are, and have always been a software company that's failed everytime its tried its hand at any type of hardware). .. WHY SHOULD THEY CONTINUE IN THE GAME HARDWARE BUSINESS WHEN THEY CAN'T MAKE ANY MONEY AT IT???Okay i'll answer your question and try and put this to bed, cause I know it is making your head hurt. I'm going to analyze the position both MS and Nintendo are in, from two perspectives. One of consumers and one of shareholders, in regard to the home console business.

NINTENDO Revolution from the eyes of a gamer. A gamer who is a fan of the Nintendo console games, should want to see Nintendo exit the home console business and put their console games on the PS3 and 360. Here is why. Recent history demonstrates Nintendo's consoles only sell first party software. A Gamer who wants to play these games must swallow the entire hardware cost and accessory costs and will only play a very small quantity of games for that investment. Said gamer will likely have to buy an additional home console to play 3rd party titles that Revolution won't support. It would be better for gamer if he did not have to buy singular use console.

NINTENDO Revolution from the eyes of a shareholder. Revolution could be a significant investment of resources. Revolution will only be a singular use home console that may not sell enough software to generate profits. Estimates predict the console will sale significantly fewer units than the GC did. It is generous to say the Revolution will have a worldwide installed base of 10 million users after 5 years. This means Nintendo's best games can only reach a maximum of 10 million users. By not making Revolution and becoming a 3rd party supporter. Nintendo could support PS3 and 360, similar to Ubisoft and EA. After 5 years 360 and PS3 could have a combined installed base of 75-100 million units. Nintendo games would be exposed to a user base 7 to 10 times larger. Generating much more sales revenue and lower cost with no hardware to support.

Now MS

From a gamer's perspective you love the XBOX division. They have tremendous hardware, the only real online gaming service in the console industry, great 1st party games and great 3rd party support. Great peripheral support that is getting even better with 360. Even Japanese support is significantly increasing with the 360. Industry analyst are predicting the 360 will outsell main rival. From a gamer's perspective there is little to be depressed about.

From a shareholder's perspective you hate the XBOX division. Its a money pit. However, as a company where are your future revenues coming from? The PC industry is slowing down and your main cash cow maybe displaced 5, 10, or 20 years from now. The home interactive entertainment industry is growing, currently rivaling the motion picture industry in terms of revenue. You have already made the investments necessary to break into the business, now after your initial prodict launch, you don't ditch the investment, you improve it. You identify the primary cause for losses, lack of cost control, address it. You improve your product and capitalize on the weaknesses of your opponents. You solidify relationships with other companies within the industry, retail, developers, manufacturers. And you begin to try to reach a break-even point. Now, MS is predicting profits after the first year with XBOX 360. This is the time when you do not divest yourself.

Summary. Nintendo is not satisfying their consumers with the Gamecube. It is doubtful now that they will be able to satisfy their consumers with the Revolution. It is probable that they will not perform as well as Gamecube with the Revolution, just as Gamecube did not outperform the N64, just as the N64 did not outperform the SNES. Nintendo has not positioned themselves to turn it around in the home console business, in fact, they have cemented their 3rd place status. Industry analyst are predicting the Revy will have trouble reaching 3 million installed in the US. When Nintendo decided to go the cheap route, they decided they didn't have the balls to compete for #1, at that point, they should have decided to become a 3rd party seller. Now, yes, the overall company is profitable, but the Revolution will reduce those profits. By going 3rd party, they would expose themselves to a maximum target audience.

Microsoft is in a different position. First of all, if the XBOX division falls flat on its face it won't bring down the whole company. That could happen with Revolution. However, things aren't nearly that dire for MS. They've already gotten XBOX losses down to a manageable level, even posting a profit for the quarter Halo2 was released. They predict the 360 will be profitable after year 1. They are in control of their cost and the sole license holder on the core parts of their machine. They can choose low cost manufacturers at their whim. They have satisfied consumers and they have a console that is going to challenge for industry dominance. The XBOX was not a lemonade stand. It takes significant capital to break into this market with a new product. Many have tried to do it against established companies, but only Sony and MS have succeeded. The losses for MS are on the books and the investment has been made, if there were not projections of profitablity and a sustainable business model(like in the case of Revolution/Gamecube) then it would be a bad decision to go forward. But 360 is projected to increase marketshare for Microsoft and become profitable the first year. MS has cemented themselve at the very least the number 2 player in an $11 billion a year industry.

Jupiter_x

10-11-2005, 12:14 AM

Did you not notice after TGS how the Rev (and MGS4) were the two top stories on pretty much every gaming site in the world? It wasn't the 360. . . even though that system is launching next month.

This Gad, is indeed a very sound point!

ThaMaskedGamer

10-11-2005, 12:24 AM

Well, having a pea sized brain like yours not only impairs the thought process and judgement, but also does things to your visual acuity. We love Katamari, 87%, Sly 3, 84%, Shadow of the Colossus, 89%. You were saying. All ps2 exclusive games that I specifically named in my previous post. Hey, what can this board expect from a guy pimping out Marvel Nemesis as his personal GOTM. Marvel Nemesis you defend, and you expect anyone to take you seriously when it comes to choices in gaming. Crawl back in that hole of yours, TMG and don't come out for a while. If you're going to defend mediocre licenced crap like MN, you have no business criticizing anybody's choice in games or systems. Those three ps2 games I listed piss all over Marvel Nemesis, a steaming pile clocking in with a 64% ranking. But, according to you, we should forget about GR on this one, and trust your judgement instead. LMAO, yea, there's a good one.

Boy you are really desperate hunh? LOL. You need to hit yourself back in the head and revert back to your XBOT identity real quick. Shadow of Collosus 89% based on 3 media outlets, holla back when it has at least 10 man. Come on, be fair. Now, i'm not gonna diss the game, it could be very good. Nice little 3rd party action game, the screen shots look horrible, but it could be fun. But, someone who can play Ninja Gaiden Black is supposed to pay for this? No, you can see there is no comparison. Katamari katamari katamari, ahhh see i've never said anything bad about this game, yes it has a 87% ratings and it is valid, but IGN, Gamespot, and Gamespy gave the game 80%, 84%, and 80%, looks like a lot of PS2 sites pumped up the score. But, all I have to do is post a screen shot of the game to show you this is a SUPER NICHE TITLE. This is ULTRA ULTRA NICHE. And most gamers are not going to buy games like these. But okay, it is a good game, not great. Sly Cooper 3, man get outta here with that crap. 84% is the best you can dig up on a trequel. Seems like just 6 months ago 2 was released. I'm not giving you this. Though I'd rather play Sly than Katamari any damn day of the year. But, really if that is the best on the PS2, you've just made my point. It is time for the PS3. The PS2 is dead, technologically it is just pathetic, its a limp noodle. You can't even be serious trying to compare these games to Ninja Gaiden Black, Halflife2, FarCry, Full Spectrum Warrior2. There is no comparison.

Now why are you attacking Marvel Nemesis? Why don't you attack an XBOX exclusive game. Marvel Nemesis isn't an XBOX game, it is an EA multiplatform game. It is a PS2, GC, and XBOX game. It is not significantly different on XBOX. So, you are attacking it why? It doesn't diminish the XBOX, or if it does, then it must equivalently diminish the PS2. I like Marvel Nemesis because i'm a huge Marvel fan and the game is a lot of simple versus fighting fun. But i'm not saying it is GOTY material nor a great XBOX game. And to the extent that I like it, I see no reason to believe I wouldn't like it just the same on PS2. Why don't u try attacking something XBOX exclusive? Well, we know why, you've obviously bumped your head again, but not that hard. You know it would be damn foolish to try and attack exclusive XBOX games while backing PS2 junk.

Brendon

10-11-2005, 12:33 AM

WOW!

It took you four long winded posts to go around in a little circle and have everyone laugh at how stupid you look.

Now put the little tricycle away.

ThaMaskedGamer

10-11-2005, 12:39 AM

However I do not like Bioware RPGs whether they are turn-based or not, they just do not appeal to me for various reasons, so no do not bring up KOTOR in an argument on this matter please.You will agree this is an individual quirk of your own, kinda like someone not liking Halo or GTA(in my case). I mean, I don't like GTA on XBOX or any platform, but I can still realize it is a good game and a good franchise. You don't like Bioware or Half-life, yet you like games like Radiata. Go figure. I think Bioware is going to be a much larger feather in the cap than Radiata, Star Ocean, etc combined.


As for the 90%, so if this is the standard here then so be it, but I cannot stand by and watch somebody lambast my hobby and call it crap when he himself has admitted to not playing them at all. At least when I lambast the XBox library I've played them (either on the Box itself or the PC versions of the games) so I know what I'm talking about. Please, get off your low horse. We call each others games crap all the time. Don't take it so literally. Though in the case of some PS2 games, they really do look like crap. They may not play altogether like crap. And if you want to forgive the tech, then that is your own threshold, a lot of gamers have. But I had better expectations when the PS2 launched, and i'm not changing them as it dies. I would assume you don't expect these kinds of games from the PS3, or at least expect them to look like they do and play like they do. Well, now you know how I felt about the PS2. And i'm not going to invest money to find out what I already know. I don't need to play Katamari, and Radiata, and others to know whether or not I will like it. And you can't expect anyone to play these games when there are better alternatives. Who is going to play Shadow of Collosus over Ninja Gaiden Black? Who is going to play Katamari over Half-life2, just to determine which one he likes better. That is foolish. I've issued summary judgement on the PS2, and I deem it garbage. But i'm a gamer and I can't wait for the PS3 to finally arrive, so we can end the discussion of this pathetic excuse of a console. I just hope PS3 is nothing at all like the PS2 and I know damn well EVERYBODY on this site wishes the same. Next generation we will have 2 nextgen consoles. This generation we only had 1.

Jupiter_x

10-11-2005, 12:41 AM

Mmmm....gosh, well, I think I'm up to your challenge here, even if it is going to be a real toughy, a barn-burner if you will.

Let's see, what is the upside of Nitendo continuing in the home hardware business?

Ok, let's focus on that word "business". Now, I'm going to speak generally here, but generally speaking the ultimate goal in business is to make money, a "profit" if you will. So, using my above-average reading skills, I've determined that despite a "whopping 60% fall from last year", Nintendo's profits are actually higher then projected.

Hmmmm....Nintendo is profitable. That is a hard concept to digest, isn't it?

Want to know something that is going to be even harder to digest? Nintendo probably made more profits in the last year, despite the 60% dropoff, then the Xbox has made M$ in it's entire lifespan. Wow.

So, to sum up, as long as Nintendo is profitable, it makes sense for them to stay in the hardware business. As long as they still produce games that I want to play, it makes sense for me personally to buy Nintendo games.

Now, let me ask you "theMaskedGamer", given that M$ has lost roughly 4 billion dollars on the Xbox so far, tell me what is the upside of M$ continuing in the home hardware business?

Shouldn't they drop their hardware and become a 3rd party publisher, publishing games for the PS3 and Revolution, since they can't make a profit in the hardware business?

That was really good reverse psychology...Cheers!

ThaMaskedGamer

10-11-2005, 06:01 AM

That was really good reverse psychology...Cheers!

Though Nintendo DS has received surprising acceptance from every territory, successfully holding off the PSP onslaught, the new handheld isn't enough of a money maker to make up for Nintendo's missteps.
Reuters Japan passes on word from Nintendo of a 78.5% reduction in operating profits for the quarter ending June 30. Speculation from the news service on the reason for the drop makes perfect sense - the GameCube doesn't have enough exclusives, first-party and third-party, and sales of GBA SP and GameCube have been declining.

I just don't know how the GC can be profitable if it is causing a 78% reduction in operating profits. And i just don't see how illiterate you people are. A 78% reduction in profits is a bad thing, they could be adding profits from the sale of software on PS3 and 360, instead their console business will continue to be a drag on profits. But, that is why the company will learn a hard lesson next cycle. SNES to N64, to GC, and now Revolution will put them out of the console business the hard way.

Superior Beatslayer

10-11-2005, 06:34 AM

woah, well TMG you sure proved your damn point. But if Nintendo was just gonna be a third party dev, they woulda made those arrangments by now and develop games for 360 and PS3, which IMO would sweet because I can just play Nintendo's games on my 360 and I wouldn't have to worry about buying more than one console and Nintendo wouldn't even have to worry about hardware............this would make a lot of sense,don't you think?

Gadfly2317

10-11-2005, 07:11 AM

they could be adding profits from the sale of software on PS3 and 360, instead their console business will continue to be a drag on profits.
What software? Don't you remember why you said the profits are down on GC? Very little new software this year as they gear up for the Rev and DS?

But, that is why the company will learn a hard lesson next cycle. SNES to N64, to GC, and now Revolution will put them out of the console business the hard way.
Perhaps--that's a very possible scenario.

Or perhaps the lower price (in the face of competitors taking prices to new untested heights), originality of the hardware and new game experienecs, 20yrs of downloads and the expansion of electronic gaming in general might prove adequate for the oldest and most respected game company to continue to make game systems, rather than giving up and making George Foreman Grills.

I am much more interested in playing the software that Nintendo will be able to create with this cool new hardware than I would be if they were just putting out stuff on 360 or Ps3 with their same-old style of gameplay. I mean be serious, do you really want a gaming world were there's no one left introducing new things?

It's just stupid to go third party now when Nintendo still in the black and profitable. What a simpering cowardly thing to do to just roll over and give-up and hand over royalties for your creations to Bill Gates or Sony for no good reason. Their next-gen plans are very compelling, and it's good they've got the balls to go for it. Hey, if the console is a flop and they have to bow out and go third party, they should do it if the Rev fails, but not before. You don't just give up without even making an effort.

trebor

10-11-2005, 07:20 AM

Mmmm....gosh, well, I think I'm up to your challenge here, even if it is going to be a real toughy, a barn-burner if you will. Your attempts to be witty are not successful.

Actually, I was being sarcastic there. I'm shocked that you missed the sarcasm. On second thought, no I'm not. :rolleyes:


Ok, let's focus on that word "business". Now, I'm going to speak generally here, but generally speaking the ultimate goal in business is to make money, a "profit" if you will. So, using my above-average reading skills, I've determined that despite a "whopping 60% fall from last year", Nintendo's profits are actually higher then projected. No, your reading skills are seemingly somewhere at the middle school level, at best. In fact, none of seem to understand, this is NOT about the handhelds or Nintendo going out of business. This is not about the profits generated by the rest of the company. If your reading skills were decent at the very least, you will notice I said the GC sales dropped 60%. Yes, the DS was extremely profitable and yes despite the poor performing GC profits only fell 6%, that was also due to currency fluctuations a lucky gamble. But this isn't about the DS, so stop playing the shell game.

Ok, even discounting handheld sales, every GC is sold at a profit, not at a loss like the current Xbox. So even if just GC sales were off 60%, they are still profitable - albeit far less profitable, but still more profitable then the Xbox is. lol

Of course, you also admitted since we're nearing the end of the current console cycle, that ALL the consoles have dropped in sales comparitively from last year. So, really, what IS your point, eh?


Want to know something that is going to be even harder to digest? Nintendo probably made more profits in the last year, despite the 60% dropoff, then the Xbox has made M$ in it's entire lifespan. You still can't read. Nintendo didn't have a 60% drop off, the GC did. If Nintendo had a 60% drop off their shareholder's would be revolting. Don't brag about your intelligence when you can't even properly read a paragraph. Damn, the heading is bold text, GAMECUBE SALES FALL...... '

Yet in it's lifetime, the GC was how many more times profitable for Nintendo then the Xbox was for M$? Is it even possibly to quantify such a large number? So, again, to answer your original "challenge" despite the dropoff in ONLY GAMECUBE SALES, the console itself has been profitable for Nintendo this generation. Get it?

The Gamecube made Nintendo money, so that is their incentive to continue to produce home consoles.


So, to sum up, as long as Nintendo is profitable, it makes sense for them to stay in the hardware business.... By now you should see that you are a complete jag-off. Let's sum up what you are actually saying, the handheld business is generating record profits, but the CONSOLE BUSINESS is generating LOSSES, so it makes perfect sense to stay in the HARDWARE BUSINESS. I'll say it once more, Nintendo should stop making home CONSOLES, not handhelds.

Man, I've never encountered anyone who consistantly makes themselves look like a buffoon more then you do, Masky.

Ok, Mr. Hooked on Phonics, please direct me to the part of the article wherein it states that the Gamecube is generating "losses". Oh wait, you can't, because it never stated that the GC is generating losses.

Slow sales have caused a shortfall, i.e. LESS PROFIT. Ok, now I'm going to put this as simply as possible, so hopefully you can get it through your thick skull...

Less profit does NOT equal a loss.

In other small words, even if Nintendo is making less profit from the Gamecube as they projected for the year, they still make profit from it. Since they can still profit from their home console business, they will continue to release home consoles.

Now, if you can't understand that the GC is already a drag on sales, and that the Revy just might be also, and that they probably have no shot in hell to capture 2nd or 1st place in the console business, why stay in it? Especially when they could rake in the profits by putting their software on the PS3 and 360. So that their console software sales can ADD to the DS and handheld profits. Do you need a Powerpoint presentation?

No, I don't need a "powerpoint presentation", but apparently you need a few sessions with Sesame Street to get you back up to speed.

The Gamecube is profitable. Nintendo believes the Revolution will be profitable. 1 + 1 = 2.

I see you chickened out from MY challenge to YOU.

Given that M$ has lost roughly 4 billion dollars on the Xbox so far, tell me what is the upside of M$ continuing in the home hardware business?

Shouldn't they drop their hardware and become a 3rd party publisher, publishing games for the PS3 and Revolution, since they can't make a profit in the hardware business?

Gadfly2317

10-11-2005, 07:28 AM

Of course, you also admitted since we're nearing the end of the current console cycle, that ALL the consoles have dropped in sales comparitively from last year. So, really, what IS your point, eh?

Good point. It's at the heart of why this is such a ridiculously stupid thread. We might as well have started a thread about how Ps2 sales have plummeted to the point they are getting beaten by the DS handheld in Japan. Geez, maybe Sony should wet its pants and get out of the hardware business, go third party, and put their software on the Phantom.

I love how its all doom because last year console profits are down. TMG probably doesn't recall that this generation there was a period when Nintendo, while not generating as much gross revenue as Ps2, was actually more profitable than even the Ps2. Xbox was simply an abject failure, not only as harware, but in generating the hoped-for profit stream from Live or to move first many first party software titles, which he refuses to address.

Mochan

10-11-2005, 10:17 AM

is game is pulling 74% on gamerankings and the graphics may the Dreamcast look like a supercomputer.

Huh? Radiata Story's graphics are incredible. The cartoony style they used was excellent and the world was very alive. The game itself may only be 74% but I've noticed that reviewers as of late are far less appreciative of JRPGs in general and more appreciative of shooter and arcade fare (this may be one of the reasons why XBox games are doing so well in ratings as opposed to PS2 games... more of those types of games in the lineup).

And YES the PS2 is still growing strong, we have more strong titles coming up like Romancing Saga, SMT DDS2, Shadow of the Colossus, Fatal Frame 3, RE4, SC3, Spartan Total Warrior, Kagero 2, Castlevania, SuikoTactics, Dragon Quest 8, Onimusha 4, Wild Arms 4, FF Dirge and 12, Grandia 3, and Okami amongst others (I'm just pointing out the stuff I have an interest in). I'm not even counting the crapload of smaller niche Japanese stuff I'm also going to be picking up (like Cowboy Bebop, Eureka 7, Seed vs. Zaft, and Oz). Compared to a console that is getting its plug pulled next month? Definitely going strong.

There's way too much to respond to, I'm unable to read them all at this time. But regarding Bioware vs. Radiata or whatever, yes these are individual gamer traits and again you can't bash my game preferences and call the games I like crap and expect me to sit still, especially since you haven't even played the game in question (and you probably never will becuase I know it's not your cup of tea).

But for you to call it crap without ever playing it, man what ignorance and arrogance. Our gaming preferences are just as opposite as they possibly can be but every single game I dissed from your gaming preferences, at least I played first hand so I know what I can complain about. All you ever do is do your armchair complaing from reading the reviews of some gamesite. You'll note that I don't react to a lot of games like Conker etc., I don't because I never played them. If I do react, I will only ever note what I read in a review and I never call them crap et al, simply the impression I got from whatever I read. To be honest many of these games don't appeal to me but I don't think I have the right to call them turd without even playing them. Calling something crap because of what someone else said and calling it crap from your own personal experience are two entirely different things.

My bottom line is, don't knock it until you've tried it.

Gadfly2317

10-11-2005, 11:41 AM

Huh? Radiata Story's graphics are incredible. The cartoony style they used was excellent and the world was very alive.

TMG wouldn't know incredible graphics if god tattoed them on his forehead. Xbot's in general don't. Look at how he's ripping on Shadow of the Collosus; it isn't about the art of graphic design, it's about polygons--to TMG, if it isn't Sam Fisher's realistically rendered bulging crotch, it isn't art, it isn't good graphics.

Next gen xbot cutting edge graphics will be Sam Fisher's pits growing sweaty in real-time reactions to stressful situations. Now that's a kick ass gameplay innovation.

Gadfly2317

10-11-2005, 12:00 PM

You don't believe the uber-machismo Sam Fisher is the ultimate gay icon budding from the repressed and withering masculinity of the xbot psyche? Just look at the Sam Fisher doll, PVC outift with tear-away nipple covers, George Michael facial hair. . .he even has knee-pads for christ's sake:

http://www.the-nextlevel.com/features/events/pandora-tomorrow

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.the-nextlevel.com/features/events/pandora-tomorrow-world-premiere/sam-fisher.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.the-nextlevel.com/features/events/pandora-tomorrow-world-premiere/&h=640&w=480&sz=87&tbnid=1N7HPLUDC4UJ:&tbnh=135&tbnw=101&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dsam%2Bfisher%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D&oi=imagesr&start=1

Mochan

10-11-2005, 12:22 PM

I'm a graphics whore too but I appreciate good art design when I see it. PS2's games like Radiata Stories or Digital Devil Saga may be low on the polys, with remarkably weak shadowing and all that but they still look damn good. And I can see cartoony graphics that are no good, too. I just saw Zelda Wind Waker on the Gamecube and man it has cartoony graphics that make me want to puke. Radiata Story has kick-ass graphics, no matter how weak the system.

Even compared to a PC game with all the bells and whistles, they still look pretty good. In a different way though, it's not about polycount, softshadowing, specular mapping or HDR. It's just about simple good aesthetic sense. Even if you don't like the kiddy cartoony look you should be able to appreciate how good it looks in the same way you would look at, say, Beauty and the Beast or Aladdin and recognize the artistry involved.

I can't say the same for a game like Marvel Nemesis. It has some good character models but the environments are horrible (especially the skyline), and the overall effect makes you want to turn your head away. Same with XMen Legends 2, which just has crap cellshaded graphics, period.

Oh, and while I'm not pointing fingers at anyone in particular here, I still can't get over it if XBox 1 graphics are being argued as incredible but when I look at a typical PC game they blow the XBox games out of the water. Poly count, normal mapping, softshadowing, High Def, you name it. ;)

PS - And Gadfly, please don't remind me of yet another reason why I don't like Splinter Cell. My fragile masculinity can't take it. :)

slade

10-11-2005, 12:28 PM

You can't explain art design to someone whose entire existance is made up of trying to convince himself how mature he is for playing videogames.

trebor

10-11-2005, 01:03 PM

I just saw Zelda Wind Waker on the Gamecube and man it has cartoony graphics that make me want to puke.

Wow. I know that taste can be subjective and all, but...jeez.

Personally, I think Wind Waker is the most artistically beautiful game ever made. To me it's utterly stunning and a real achievment in the "games as art" movement.

ThaMaskedGamer

10-11-2005, 02:00 PM

What software? Don't you remember why you said the profits are down on GC? Very little new software this year as they gear up for the Rev and DS?

Perhaps--that's a very possible scenario.

Or perhaps the lower price (in the face of competitors taking prices to new untested heights), originality of the hardware and new game experienecs, 20yrs of downloads and the expansion of electronic gaming in general might prove adequate for the oldest and most respected game company to continue to make game systems, rather than giving up and making George Foreman Grills.

I am much more interested in playing the software that Nintendo will be able to create with this cool new hardware than I would be if they were just putting out stuff on 360 or Ps3 with their same-old style of gameplay. I mean be serious, do you really want a gaming world were there's no one left introducing new things?

It's just stupid to go third party now when Nintendo still in the black and profitable. What a simpering cowardly thing to do to just roll over and give-up and hand over royalties for your creations to Bill Gates or Sony for no good reason. Their next-gen plans are very compelling, and it's good they've got the balls to go for it. Hey, if the console is a flop and they have to bow out and go third party, they should do it if the Rev fails, but not before. You don't just give up without even making an effort.

Ignoring all of your subsequent fanboy comments as well as Trebor's, though I must respond to one thing Trebor said. Apparently, he can't do math as well as he can read. I can't find Nintendo's quarterly report anywhere, but it is very obvious fool that the GC did not generate profits. The statement said that Nintendo had generated profits from the DS etc., but the GC REDUCED THOSE PROFITS. I don't know how smart you have to be to understand that means GC lost money. If the DS generated say $100 of profit, and the GC generated $1 of profit, then the GC would be adding to profits. However, if the DS generated $100 of profit, but the profits decreased to $50 after the GC was taken into account, then that means the GC generated a lost. If you read these press clippings, this is exactly what they are saying.

Now, to Gadfly, good. I understand your point, now you understand mine. We happen to disagree. You think Nintendo should continue and give it the old college try. Which I would expect no less of you. You ask what software? What little software they have would be better served on the 360 and PS3 being exposed to significantly larger audiences. I stated and a Router's article from Japan stated the problem with the Gamecube was that there was not enough GAMES. Everybody knows that is the problem. Yes, Nintendo can sell their wares, but that is like Ubisoft coming up with a console just to sell Rainbow6, Ghost Recon, and Splinter Cell. That is utterly stupid, and that is exactly what Nintendo has become. They must have third party support this time around. Releasing all their old classics is not going to be enough. Anyway, obviously we will see how this all unfolds.

And yes, it is quite obvious we have different taste in gaming. As I said about Mochan, the fact that he can diss games like Half-life, when at the point Half-life was released it was the best game on the planet and the best FPS to that date, the fact that both of you can dismiss Bioware and Splinter Cell, all the while supporting games like Katamari and Radiata and claiming Radiata's art looks good, defintely means we have different taste. I don't question your poor taste, I truly believe u like those suck azz games. It is unfortunate as you say, the general public, at least in the states don't share your views. And it is unfortunate for you both that your taste will have to change. Next generation projects such as these will dry up, or be forced to look something more like Western RPGs, watch. Times change though i'm happy Nintendo is looking out for gamers like you, you can stay stuck in the past with Revolution for as along as it remains viable.

trebor

10-11-2005, 02:26 PM

Ignoring all of your subsequent fanboy comments as well as Trebor's, though I must respond to one thing Trebor said. Apparently, he can't do math as well as he can read. I can't find Nintendo's quarterly report anywhere, but it is very obvious fool that the GC did not generate profits. The statement said that Nintendo had generated profits from the DS etc., but the GC REDUCED THOSE PROFITS. I don't know how smart you have to be to understand that means GC lost money. If the DS generated say $100 of profit, and the GC generated $1 of profit, then the GC would be adding to profits. However, if the DS generated $100 of profit, but the profits decreased to $50 after the GC was taken into account, then that means the GC generated a lost. If you read these press clippings, this is exactly what they are saying.

LOL! You are so confused.

Now, this will require a bit of constructive thinking on your part here, but, the GC fell short of projected profits.

READ MonkeyGamer...

Nintendo Cuts Forecast
Slow GCN sales and DS price cuts affect the Big N's bottom line.
by David Adams

October 7, 2005 - Nintendo has cut its first-half operating profit forecast by one third due primarily to slow sales of GameCube hardware and software in North America. The company also said that recent price cuts for the Nintendo DS, as well as the cost of developing its next-generation console -- known so far as Revolution -- also affected earnings.

In August, Nintendo dropped the price of the DS from $149 to $129 in the US, and from €149 to €129 in Europe. The company is also preparing its Revolution project to launch next year, when it will join Microsoft's Xbox 360 and Sony's PlayStation 3 as the new breed of gaming consoles.

Nintendo now expects to book a group operating profit of 20 billion yen for the six months ended September 30, compared to its prior estimate of 30 billion yen. The company dropped its first-half sales estimate to 175 billion yen, down 8 percent.

Due to fluctuations in the value of the dollar, however, Nintendo is revising its first-half net profit estimate to 36 billion yen instead of the previously forecast 19 billion yen.

Reuters quoted Nintendo senior managing director Yoshihiro Mori, who spoke at a news conference in Osaka. "The big drop for GameCube games was in North America," Mori said. "It looks like the [GameCube's] life is nearing its end.

Gadfly2317

10-11-2005, 02:27 PM

Now, to Gadfly, good. I understand your point, now you understand mine. We happen to disagree. You think Nintendo should continue and give it the old college try. Which I would expect no less of you. You ask what software? What little software they have would be better served on the 360 and PS3 being exposed to significantly larger audiences. The Xbox base isn't that much bigger than the GC; and do really think many more copies of SSBM would have sold on Xbox than sold on GC? When you add in the reduced profits of paying royalties to MS, it just makes no sense to go third party.

Times change though i'm happy Nintendo is looking out for gamers like you, you can stay stuck in the past with Revolution for as along as it remains viable.

But it seems to me like its the Xbox gamers who are stuck in the past with their shooters and racers. The DS is very much forward thinking and bringing actual new things to gaming. Will Rev do the same? It could, and should--and I don't mind if some of those new things happen to star Mario and take place in the Mushroom Kingdom. If the Rev doesn't introduce the kind of innovative experiences we're seeing on the DS, it will be a failure to me and I will condemn it as such.

But man, based on the announced titles and what people say they are going to buy on 360, you've got no basis for accusing those enthusiastic about the Rev's potential of being "stuck in the past."

Mochan

10-11-2005, 03:21 PM

And it is unfortunate for you both that your taste will have to change. Next generation projects such as these will dry up, or be forced to look something more like Western RPGs, watch. Times change though i'm happy Nintendo is looking out for gamers like you, you can stay stuck in the past with Revolution for as along as it remains viable.

I hope you're wrong, but I get the feeling it won't be changing. Maybe on the XBox scene these games will disappear but as long as Sony and Nintendo don't go under I'll still be seeing JPRGs I'm sure. They may evolve a bit but that's a good thing; I wouldn't mind seeing a few more Western RPG elements in my JRPGs, especially in the gameplay department since I find the general gameplay mechanics of a Western RPG superior to JRPGs (especially with regards to linearity and free form exploration). As long as the soul of the Japanese RPG stays intact I won't mind (I'm way sick of the random encounter pop out of nowhere system after all). I'd welcome more games ala Vagrant Story after all (how about a Final Fantasy RPG with combat like Devil May Cry? That would be awesome. Star Ocean isn't quite there yet).

ThaMaskedGamer

10-12-2005, 07:22 AM

The Xbox base isn't that much bigger than the GC; and do really think many more copies of SSBM would have sold on Xbox than sold on GC? When you add in the reduced profits of paying royalties to MS, it just makes no sense to go third party. No, I think Nintendo was right in not giving up after N64, after all they were still number 2 and nobody knew how things would turn out with the GC. However, like I said, all indications are they can not rebound back, especially not with the stance and hardware they have for the Revolution. So I think their games would be better and generate more revenue on the PS3 and 360, plus even taking into consideration royalties, I think the absence of hardware development cost would and extra revenue would overcome that. Hey, you don't see Ubisoft and EA struggling for profits. Hell Rockstar is really sound based on one good franchise. But both Microsoft and Sony suffered losses recently on the home consoles, and despite what Trebor thinks, i'm sure the GC(by itself)did too.


But it seems to me like its the Xbox gamers who are stuck in the past with their shooters and racers. The DS is very much forward thinking and bringing actual new things to gaming. Will Rev do the same? It could, and should--and I don't mind if some of those new things happen to star Mario and take place in the Mushroom Kingdom. If the Rev doesn't introduce the kind of innovative experiences we're seeing on the DS, it will be a failure to me and I will condemn it as such. First of all, i'm am in no way including the DS or handheld's here, I don't know why you guys can't see i'm not concerned or talking about the handheld market. I'm only talking about the GC and Revolution. Next shooters and racers aren't the past, they are the present and the future. However, I think that criticism is just a fanboy argument. The XBOX has more RPGs and better RPGs than the GC. And there are other genres very will represented from sports, to action/adventure games. Of course being a new system, these genres got off to a slow start, aside from sports, and that was a valid criticism then, but that has long since passed. I don't think not having J-RPGs is a problem at all for the US market. They wouldn't sell on the XBOX in the states. And well a lot of these niche games u guys like don't even sell on the PS2. Do I want more diversity, of course, but unlike you guys I don't hold unreal expectations. XBOX had more diversity than the GC, but less than the PS2. To be able to come in and challenge industry leaders like that is good, now that the product is established, I expect and see 360 getting off to a faster start in terms of diversity. All ready there are a variety of RPGs, action games like Condemned that don't really focus on gunplay, there is an exclusive online Marvel RPG coming. I don't see a lot any pikmin's, 2d sidescrolling fighters, turnbased J-RPGs, though. And I don't think those omissions are going to hurt.


But man, based on the announced titles and what people say they are going to buy on 360, you've got no basis for accusing those enthusiastic about the Rev's potential of being "stuck in the past." I think there are some very good announced titles. Not just launch but going forward. Like I said an online Marvel RPG, Mass Effect, Condemned, Too Human, Oblivion, plus there are scores of other projects in the works. We haven't seen one Revolution title at all, so I don't see how you can be enthusiastic? Over just a controller? A controller is a good start, but the controller isn't what stifled GC, it was a lack of games. I mean it wasn't the Gamecube, it was just a cube. And thus far, i've seen much more from 360 than PS3. I don't think showing off Metal Gear movies is going to draw in new fans, might get the old fan based revved up, but everybody expects a Metal Gear, just like everybody expects a Halo3. We will soon see how Revolution fares. I think they made a mistake, they stayed on too long this time.

Mochan

10-12-2005, 07:33 AM

To be fair a lot of the announced games on the Xbox 360 excite me. The only problem is, most of the ones that do excite me, are coming out on PC as well. :P

trebor

10-12-2005, 07:41 AM

First of all, i'm am in no way including the DS or handheld's here, I don't know why you guys can't see i'm not concerned or talking about the handheld market. I'm only talking about the GC and Revolution.

You're a delusional fanboy, as always, and your entire argument has more holes then swiss cheese. Whether you want to include Nintendo's other profit sources in your argument or not, they still exist, so therefore it renders your entire argument as stupid and inane.

But fine, let's play by your rules. If you compared just the Gamecube for Nintendo, versus just the Xbox for Microsoft, as in pretending that Nintendo's handhelds didn't exist or that Windows didn't exist, your argument is STILL shot down. In it's generational lifetime the Gamecube made Nintendo profit, while the Xbox created staggering losses for Microsoft.

From a business standpoint, logically speaking, there is more incentive for Nintendo to continue in the console business, since they profited from it OVERALL, while there is NO incentive for M$ to stay with the console business, since they NEVER PROFITED FROM THEIR HARDWARE.

Considering this simple logic, why can't you answer my questions?

Given that M$ has lost roughly 4 billion dollars on the Xbox so far, tell me what is the upside of M$ continuing in the home hardware business?

Shouldn't M$ drop their hardware and become a 3rd party publisher, publishing games for the PS3 and Revolution, since they can't make a profit in the hardware business?

Wouldn't the great Xbox games be as good on the other systems as they are on the Xbox? What do you think makes great games, Masky? Is it the the hardware it's played on or the software itself that makes a game great?

Quit being such a chicken and directly respond to these questions already.

Gadfly2317

10-12-2005, 08:29 AM

First of all, i'm am in no way including the DS or handheld's here, I don't know why you guys can't see i'm not concerned or talking about the handheld market. I'm only talking about the GC and Revolution.

The reason its relevant to the discussion is because you dis the Revolution based on things like it's "inferior" technology, and you dis Nintendo's philosophy of making cost-effective hardware that brings truly original gameplay to the market, rather than just throwing money after polygons.

We haven't seen one Revolution title at all, so I don't see how you can be enthusiastic? Over just a controller? A controller is a good start, but the controller isn't what stifled GC, it was a lack of games.
Very few here seemed to understand my enthusiasm for the DS back WAY before we got to see games. I'm not some genius or game designer, but I do play games and really thought about what the hell could possibily be done with the DS hardware--and it totally inspired enthusiasm that I haven't felt about gaming in years. I could have been wrong, but I wasn't. The system blows my mind, and it appears to be blowing minds in Japan. It's not doing terrible here, but a lot of gamers are missing out on the only original thing going in gaming right now.

So again, I'm not discussing the handheld market so much as I'm using it to illustrate the success of Nintendo's recent philosophical direction, and my excitement over the possiblities of the Rev hardware.

That said, I know the Rev will probably stay in third place, it will certainly have less software than the other two. But it's a viable system anyway and will generate profit for Nintendo, allowing them to make games unlike what you will be able to play on the other systems. If they were third party they'd be limited by the old-style hardware of the Ps3 and 360. At this point, I don't think it matters if they are third--gaming has grown into such a massive hobby that the market can support three systems. The Rev will survive. Hell, man, just look at the 20 year catalog of downloads--that's nearly 100% pure profit, even if they only charge $5 a game.

ThaMaskedGamer

10-12-2005, 04:37 PM

To be fair a lot of the announced games on the Xbox 360 excite me. The only problem is, most of the ones that do excite me, are coming out on PC as well. :P

Not for you, but it is a good thing the games are generating excitement, most console gamers, aren't concerned about PC gaming, so it is good for 360. We saw this kind of synergy between XBOX and PC, however this time around the games will look as good or maybe better initially on the 360 and that quality should last for a good long time.

ThaMaskedGamer

10-12-2005, 04:47 PM

You're a delusional fanboy, as always, and your entire argument has more holes then swiss cheese. Whether you want to include Nintendo's other profit sources in your argument or not, they still exist, so therefore it renders your entire argument as stupid and inane.

But fine, let's play by your rules. If you compared just the Gamecube for Nintendo, versus just the Xbox for Microsoft, as in pretending that Nintendo's handhelds didn't exist or that Windows didn't exist, your argument is STILL shot down. In it's generational lifetime the Gamecube made Nintendo profit, while the Xbox created staggering losses for Microsoft.

From a business standpoint, logically speaking, there is more incentive for Nintendo to continue in the console business, since they profited from it OVERALL, while there is NO incentive for M$ to stay with the console business, since they NEVER PROFITED FROM THEIR HARDWARE.

Considering this simple logic, why can't you answer my questions?

Given that M$ has lost roughly 4 billion dollars on the Xbox so far, tell me what is the upside of M$ continuing in the home hardware business?

Shouldn't M$ drop their hardware and become a 3rd party publisher, publishing games for the PS3 and Revolution, since they can't make a profit in the hardware business?

Wouldn't the great Xbox games be as good on the other systems as they are on the Xbox? What do you think makes great games, Masky? Is it the the hardware it's played on or the software itself that makes a game great?

Quit being such a chicken and directly respond to these questions already.

You know the answer to your question. If the Nintendo home console business is not going to capture market share, nor be profitable, and if you decide to be a low tech provider in a high tech business, then you need to get out. MS' past losses are just that, past losses, the 360 is projected to gain market share and be profitable. One has been on a long decline, ever since the N64. The other took a big risk and got in the market, and the worst times appear to be over. It would be a different story if Nintendo were in this to win or try and win. If they had an innovative controller aaaaaaand a competitive console, then they would be at least trying to compete. But offering a cheap console with the hopes of luring gamers with low low prices, isn't going to work in my opinion. The Revolution will definitely perform worse than the GC. Industy analyst think it will do very badly, I don't think it will do as bad as they project. But I definitely think it will do worse than GC. Do you think the 360 will do worse than XBOX, and do you think the 360 will not be profitable?

Zilla Man

10-12-2005, 06:50 PM

Considering this simple logic, why can't you answer my questions?

Given that M$ has lost roughly 4 billion dollars on the Xbox so far, tell me what is the upside of M$ continuing in the home hardware business?

Actually, Trebor, according to the link you provided earlier, Microsoft has lost a total of 7 billion dollars on the Xbox since it's intro in 2001. :eek:

Now tell us, MG, just how is that profitable?

Zilla Man

10-12-2005, 06:54 PM

You know the answer to your question. If the Nintendo home console business is not going to capture market share, nor be profitable, and if you decide to be a low tech provider in a high tech business, then you need to get out. MS' past losses are just that, past losses, the 360 is projected to gain market share and be profitable.

No, the 7 billion dollar loss M$ is taking on Xbox is current - it includes 2005. Did you even read the article that Trebor posted? Even M$ admitted they've lost more money than Nintendo.

trebor

10-13-2005, 07:27 AM

You know the answer to your question. If the Nintendo home console business is not going to capture market share, nor be profitable, and if you decide to be a low tech provider in a high tech business, then you need to get out.

Riiiiight. And the PS2 has dominated this generation because why? They are the highest tech?

You heard it here first, folks, MaskedGamer thinks the PS2 is higher tech then the Xbox.

MS' past losses are just that, past losses, the 360 is projected to gain market share and be profitable.

Past losses are just past losses? Tell that to the shareholders of M$. You do realize that even IF the 360 gains market share and is profitable, it won't offset the 7 billion dollar hole that the Xbox created, right?

As in, even after the 360 has gone the way of the Xbox (in probably 3 years) the M$ Home & Entertainment division will still have a net loss from when the Xbox was first introduced? You really believe that the M$ shareholders will really be on board the Xbox 780 when the 360 will have failed to recoup the losses the Xbox incured?

One has been on a long decline, ever since the N64. The other took a big risk and got in the market, and the worst times appear to be over.

M$ took a big risk? M$ has copied Sony's formula to strongarm into the industry, have used standard PC parts to create the original Xbox, swayed PC developers to port over their PC titles to said Xbox, and has the most obnoxiously mainstream software library available - they're software library is the equivalent to a music Top 40 list of the week.

Sorry chum, but M$ has played it about as safe as it gets. The only risk they've taken is the debt they've incured to break into the industry, and frankly, I see that more as a giant gamble then a risk.

Furthermore, the 360 is taking even LESS RISKS then the Xbox did. It is basically a linear step up from the Xbox, with nothing new or exciting added to the system, other than the incremental step up in horsepower that happens every console generation. In fact, M$ took the best thing they brought to the industry, the internal HDD, and got rid of it in favor of a hokey, non-standard detachable HDD.

It would be a different story if Nintendo were in this to win or try and win. If they had an innovative controller aaaaaaand a competitive console, then they would be at least trying to compete. But offering a cheap console with the hopes of luring gamers with low low prices, isn't going to work in my opinion. The Revolution will definitely perform worse than the GC. Industy analyst think it will do very badly, I don't think it will do as bad as they project. But I definitely think it will do worse than GC.

Well, as you so eagerly stated previously, the GC was a downward turn since the N64 right? What this says to me is that Nintendo tried to compete on the same level as the PS2 and Xbox and lost. Given this, why in the world should they try the same strategy in the next-gen?

So they are going a different route and when I say different, I mean REALLY DIFFERENT. Nintendo is going to offer gaming experiences completely unavailable to the PS3 and the 360. Nintendo is also going to offer these unique games for a system that is competitively priced. We all know your stance on competive pricing - less cost equals less horsepower, and less horsepower to you, MaskedGamer, is more important in your mind then any unique and different games you might be able to play.

Hypothetically speaking, even IF Nintendo released a console that outdid the PS3 and 360 in terms of horsepower, as in competed with tech specs instead of games, you wouldn't buy the system anyways, because you are a Micro$oft whore through and through.

You see, the thing you can't seem to fathom, is that Nintendo isn't trying to lure gamers with a low price-point - they're trying to lure gamers with completely fresh, unique, and innovative new types of games. You're just too mainstream to care.

Do you think the 360 will do worse than XBOX, and do you think the 360 will not be profitable?

No and no. I think the 360 will do better then the Xbox and be profitable UNTO ITSELF. Do I honestly think that the 360 in it's generational lifetime will recoup the losses that the Xbox incured? No way. Not a chance.

Gadfly2317

10-13-2005, 08:20 AM

Thanks Trebor; you nailed the final nail in the coffin, and buried TMG's gibberish to boot.

Mochan

10-13-2005, 09:07 AM

We all know your stance on competive pricing - less cost equals less horsepower, and less horsepower to you, MaskedGamer, is more important in your mind then any unique and different games you might be able to play.

Hypothetically speaking, even IF Nintendo released a console that outdid the PS3 and 360 in terms of horsepower, as in competed with tech specs instead of games, you wouldn't buy the system anyways, because you are a Micro$oft whore through and through.

Heck, Sony is very likely to release a console that costs more, thus "more horsepower," and yet TMG is likely going to get the MS console anyway.

Gadfly2317

10-13-2005, 09:13 AM

Heck, Sony is very likely to release a console that costs more, thus "more horsepower," and yet TMG is likely going to get the MS console anyway.

Well, not only does the Ps3 have more horsepower, it also features larger storage media, HDMI outs, Hi-def movie playback and numerous other "tech" features that MS doesn't Have. Additionally, though 360 should have more raw horsepower than the Rev, it doesn't have a number of technologies featured in the Rev, including full b/c, voice recognition capabilities, nor the hi-tech and versatile control features.

When you get right down to it, the 360 is the true "lo-tech" system of the three---inferior to the Ps3 in everyway, and not sporting any new, original or differentiating technologies like the Rev. It truly has earned it's name "Xbox 1.5" for being a mere incremental graphical upgrade to Xbox (or downgraded, if you ever argued that a standard harddrive was a plus.)

ThaMaskedGamer

10-16-2005, 07:00 AM

Riiiiight. And the PS2 has dominated this generation because why? They are the highest tech?

You heard it here first, folks, MaskedGamer thinks the PS2 is higher tech then the Xbox. I told you why the PS2 dominated this generation. Because of the tremendous loyalty and brand recognition built up by the PSOne. Nintendo doesn't have that and that is why their low tech approach will not be successful. Actually, I'd like to know what you think, you think the Revolution will be more successful than the GC? Basically Nintendo has been losing marketshare since SNES, so will Revolution turn that around?


Past losses are just past losses? Tell that to the shareholders of M$. You do realize that even IF the 360 gains market share and is profitable, it won't offset the 7 billion dollar hole that the Xbox created, right?

As in, even after the 360 has gone the way of the Xbox (in probably 3 years) the M$ Home & Entertainment division will still have a net loss from when the Xbox was first introduced? You really believe that the M$ shareholders will really be on board the Xbox 780 when the 360 will have failed to recoup the losses the Xbox incured? You don't know anything about financial statements and investing do you? First off all, while XBOX was busy piling up losses, MS issued shareholder's a dividend, the total amount of the dividend was so big it actually affected the GDP. Any profit and loss is measured on the income statement friend, each fiscal year the income statement amounts get zeroed out. Losses don't carry forward. Aside from net capital losses, which these aren't anyway. Those losses are gone and do not affect shareholder's going forward. New losses would. This is entirely why MS was ready to get out from under the XBOX cost structure. The 360's if it sells only as well as XBOX will be hugely profitable for Microsoft. The Revolution, not the DS and the Gameboy et at, will have to do better than the GC in order for it to be profitable. That is a big ? mark.


Sorry chum, but M$ has played it about as safe as it gets. That's your assessment, there was more risk involved in XBOX Live alone than anything Sony and Nintendo did with PS2 and GC.


Well, as you so eagerly stated previously, the GC was a downward turn since the N64 right? What this says to me is that Nintendo tried to compete on the same level as the PS2 and Xbox and lost. Given this, why in the world should they try the same strategy in the next-gen? Their technology should be equivalent in terms of power. Nobody said their games or services had to be equivalent. But having weaker technology is not the answer.


So they are going a different route and when I say different, I mean REALLY DIFFERENT. Nintendo is going to offer gaming experiences completely unavailable to the PS3 and the 360. Nintendo is also going to offer these unique games for a system that is competitively priced. We all know your stance on competive pricing - less cost equals less horsepower, and less horsepower to you, MaskedGamer, is more important in your mind then any unique and different games you might be able to play.>/b> A different route, doesn't mean you have to have significantly weaker technology. Why do you think unique games and competitive power are mutually exclusive. Developers are asking for more power so their imaginations aren't limited by technology. Nintendo seems to only be delivering a console suited for their development purposes, and not at all what 3rd parties have desires for. And that is not good, you can't have a console with only Nintendo products. Their 3rd party support has steadily declined and this is not going to turn that around.


Hypothetically speaking, even IF Nintendo released a console that outdid the PS3 and 360 in terms of horsepower, as in competed with tech specs instead of games, you wouldn't