 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups Platforms PCXboxPlayStationNintendoGames ActionStrategyRole Playing GamesSimulatorsSport Games |
Game Forum / Nintendo / GameCube / August 2006next generation - no buy generation ?
Hi Things are getting really worse with the next Console generation. At the moment i still cant decide wich system to buy: 1. Nintendo has no HDTV, thats mega LAME! The WI is just a flatened gamecube with Aerobic Controller :( But nitendo has the best Games :(( 2. Microsoft hat HDTV Support, runs perfect on a Flat TV, but most of the Games are just LAME. 3. And SONY of Course is LAME by NAME, very expensive and noone knows if the hardware has got power. No i reaylly have no idea what to buy next. maybe i will wait a few years :) Chris Why is a mushroom called mushroom? As usual, "Christoph Kögler" <cronoz@gmx.de> got it all completely wrong and wrote: >Hi > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >1. Nintendo has no HDTV, thats mega LAME! True. On the other hand, I haven't got a HDTV either so :-) >The WI is just a flatened gamecube with Aerobic >Controller :( But nitendo has the best Games :(( I'm really looking forward to it. I believe it might just work out and be something different compared to the other consoles. And the price isn't too expensive either, so I'll definitely get one. >2. Microsoft hat HDTV Support, runs perfect >on a Flat TV, but most of the Games are just [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >very expensive and noone knows if the hardware >has got power. Both the 360 and the PS3 don't appeal to me at the moment. Sure, I'll eventually get both of them, but at the moment they're just too expensive. Most of the games are quite similar to what you can get on the "old" generation, albeit the graphics are better of course. I reckon if you wait another year or two, the prices will be affordable and there'll be plenty of quality games by then > Why is a mushroom called mushroom? As usual, "Christoph Kögler" > <cronoz@gmx.de> got it all completely wrong and wrote: [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > reckon if you wait another year or two, the prices will be affordable > and there'll be plenty of quality games by then What did the poster expect some clowns in this group to say? Why is a mushroom called mushroom? As usual, "Guest" <llcoolj@comcast.com> got it all completely wrong and wrote: >What did the poster expect some clowns in this group to say? Probably exactly what your contributions so far were. So what's your opinion then, if possible stated without any funny "wiik" jokes? > Hi > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > 1. Nintendo has no HDTV, thats mega LAME! So what? Do you hate the games you play now because they aren't in HD? Besides, I've seen high res videos of Zelda on a widescreen plasma TV, and it looks phenomenal. Can't see what the real problem is here. > The WI is just a flatened gamecube with Aerobic > Controller :( But nitendo has the best Games :(( Right. And the DS is just a GBA with two screens and a stylus. Rather than getting hung up on your preconceived ideas of how a console should work, try using a little imagination for a change and think about the totally original ideas that will come from the Wii's unique features. >> Hi >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > work, try using a little imagination for a change and think about the > totally original ideas that will come from the Wii's unique features. f.ck those bullshit features! Only in THIS generation(360) has Nintendo NOT taken the lead in the technological race on systems. Either they had the best graphics or the best effects on a system. Those advantages is what they ALWAYS focused on. Now that they cannot compete, they all of a sudden want to change the focus. When the controller has lost is brief appeal, the Wii alone will not be enough it carry them through. This is the last that we will see of Nintendo in the home arena. Now, I await Mario on the 360 and PS3.... >>> Hi >>> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > what they ALWAYS focused on. Now that they cannot compete, they all of a > sudden want to change the focus. Ummm... you think maybe the results of the last two generations had a little something to do with that change in focus? Do you think it was lost on them that technology was not the determining factor in each of the last two generations? Do you think they might have factored in, just a little bit, that Microsoft subsidized their higher tech console in the billions, yet only managed to sell about the same number of consoles as they did, and came nowhere even close to matching the sales of the substantially weaker PS2? Even Iwata has stated that improving graphics is a valid way to improve a console. They have just decided to move in a different direction. And why shouldn't they? Why crowd the market with three high end, heavily subsidized consoles? I really get a laugh out of this "they cannot compete" BS some people like to throw out there. How, exactly, can they not compete? Nintendo is not Sega of the 90's, you know. Do they not have many, many billions of dollars in the bank? Do they not have a revenue generating machine in the DS, and even the GBA? Do they not have exactly the same manufacturing capacity as MS? (Essentially, none?) The only thing stopping Nintendo from making a 360 clone, or even a 360 clone with the new controller, is their belief that it would not be in their best interests to make one. > Wii alone will not be enough it carry them through. This is the last that > we will see of Nintendo in the home arena. Now, I await Mario on the 360 > and PS3.... Ah, yes, the eternal prediction that this will be, finally, the last generation for Nintendo. It's pretty much the Godwin's law of gaming newsgroups. >>>> Hi >>>> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Ummm... you think maybe the results of the last two generations had a > little something to do with that change in focus? Maybe for their systems(they did not sell well), but for Sony there were no problems. Do you think it was lost on them > that technology was not the determining factor in each of the last two > generations? It was. You forget, it was not just about graphics it was about media. Kiddy media days were over but Nintendo failed to get with the times. They forgot that they no longer lead the gaming race and no one follows their lead anymore. No one has to. Nintendo should have come out with a very powerful system with a mind blowing Mario game plus an original title along with a cool controller. Not just a gimmick designed to sell a few systems. The marketing scheme for the Wii is to attract those who don't know any better. They may win that crowd. However, that crowd also knows that the Playstation and X-box are names that mean something. Do you think they might have factored in, just a little bit, > that Microsoft subsidized their higher tech console in the billions, yet > only managed to sell about the same number of consoles as they did, and > came nowhere even close to matching the sales of the substantially weaker > PS2? Nope. I am sure that they factored in the fact the MS was new to the game and managed to sell more systems than the GC. That is what made the realize that they f.cked up. If they would have had a full-sized DVD that could play movies, they would have done better. This is one of the reasons why Sony thinks that BR will be a selling point. FOr all we know, Sony designed BR players to be $1,000 so that the PS3 would seem like a cheap alternative. > Even Iwata has stated that improving graphics is a valid way to improve a > console. They have just decided to move in a different direction. And > why shouldn't they? Why crowd the market with three high end, heavily > subsidized consoles? Two is fine. We don't need a weak, old-time machine. So the strong will survive and the wiik will perish. > I really get a laugh out of this "they cannot compete" BS some people like > to throw out there. How, exactly, can they not compete? The Wii is proof enough. Nintendo even said that they were not competing with them. What more do you need? Nintendo is not > Sega of the 90's, you know. Do they not have many, many billions of > dollars in the bank? Their money or R&D is no where like MS and Sony. Do they not have a revenue generating machine in the DS, and > even the GBA? Not again... We only care about home consoles, not child's toys. Do they not have exactly the same manufacturing capacity as > MS? (Essentially, none?) The only thing stopping Nintendo from making a > 360 clone, or even a 360 clone with the new controller, is their belief > that it would not be in their best interests to make one. Really? After this battle, they will realize that it was not in the best interest not to. I serioulsy believe that they did not make one because they did not know what the future held. I also think that they do not have the technological know-how to do it and they are so stuck on trying to make it look like a kid's toy that they could not see into the future. The future already passed them by. They should have seen what kids wanted when they all had a PS2. You would think their marketing people would know this! >> Wii alone will not be enough it carry them through. This is the last >> that we will see of Nintendo in the home arena. Now, I await Mario on [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > generation for Nintendo. It's pretty much the Godwin's law of gaming > newsgroups. Yep. Hey, Sega had the best(serious) games and look what happened to them. >>>>> Hi >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > Maybe for their systems(they did not sell well), but for Sony there were > no problems. Well, yes. Exactly my point. > Do you think it was lost on them >> that technology was not the determining factor in each of the last two [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > know any better. They may win that crowd. However, that crowd also knows > that the Playstation and X-box are names that mean something. So, now that the crowd no longer has to follow Nintendo, your advice is for Nintendo to follow the crowd? Brilliant. > Do you think they might have factored in, just a little bit, >> that Microsoft subsidized their higher tech console in the billions, yet [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Sony designed BR players to be $1,000 so that the PS3 would seem like a > cheap alternative. Oh, I don't know. I think Nintendo probably could have sold a couple million more consoles and passed up the XBox pretty easily, if they had been willing to lose $billions like Microsoft did. Heck, Sega was well on the way to doing that with the Dreamcast, they just couldn't convince anybody that they could sustain the losses (because they couldn't) and lost crucial third party support because of it. It seems to me that the bigger concern from Nintendo is getting trounced twice in a row by Sony, especially in Japan. Note that most of their strategy revolves mainly around competing with Sony (or not, to some extent, as it turns out) rather than Microsoft. >> Even Iwata has stated that improving graphics is a valid way to improve a >> console. They have just decided to move in a different direction. And [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Two is fine. We don't need a weak, old-time machine. So the strong will > survive and the wiik will perish. Could bii. Wii wiil see, won't wii? >> I really get a laugh out of this "they cannot compete" BS some people >> like to throw out there. How, exactly, can they not compete? > > The Wii is proof enough. Nintendo even said that they were not competing > with them. What more do you need? Perhaps you need a refresher on the difference between the words "can" and "will." > Nintendo is not >> Sega of the 90's, you know. Do they not have many, many billions of >> dollars in the bank? > > Their money or R&D is no where like MS and Sony. Really? Dig into the actual facts and you may find otherwise. > Do they not have a revenue generating machine in the DS, and >> even the GBA? > > Not again... We only care about home consoles, not child's toys. Isn't that a weak bit of tapdancing? Obviously the DS, or "child's toy" if you prefer, means a lot when we are talking about Nintendo's financial ability to compete. > Do they not have exactly the same manufacturing capacity as >> MS? (Essentially, none?) The only thing stopping Nintendo from making a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > interest not to. I serioulsy believe that they did not make one because > they did not know what the future held. Who knows, you might even turn out to be right about that. It doesn't make my statement any less accurate. > I also think that they do not have the technological know-how to do it and > they are so stuck on trying to make it look like a kid's toy that they > could not see into the future. The future already passed them by. They > should have seen what kids wanted when they all had a PS2. You would > think their marketing people would know this! You really think the Wii looks like a kid's toy? Seriously? >>> Wii alone will not be enough it carry them through. This is the last >>> that we will see of Nintendo in the home arena. Now, I await Mario on [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Yep. Hey, Sega had the best(serious) games and look what happened to > them. Yes, and Sega was in terrible financial shape and was on the verge of bankruptcy, too. The Dreamcast was their last gasp effort at making it in the console business, and it was a damn fine effort. The tie-in ratio for the Dreamcast was incredible. In the end, though, valid doubts about their financial stability lead publishers like EA to deliberately ignore the console, and I think a lot of the casual gaming market felt the same way. How does this tie in to what is happening to Nintendo? Answer - it doesn't. Sega was on the verge of bankruptcy; Nintendo is very profitable. Sega had no cash reserves and a large amount of debt; Nintendo has huge cash reserves and almost no debt. Sega lost the confidence of major publishers like EA; Nintendo is actually seeing increased confidence from the same publishers. Sega also heavily subsidized the console and was losing a lot of money for every unit sold. It almost killed them as a company. No doubt you would like to see Nintendo follow the same path, but so far they are refusing to do so. >> Do you think it was lost on them >>> that technology was not the determining factor in each of the last two [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > So, now that the crowd no longer has to follow Nintendo, your advice is > for Nintendo to follow the crowd? Brilliant. Well it's either that or you TOP what the others are doing. Don't put yourself in a position where you are handicapped if the gimmick controller does not work. Right now, Nintnedo's techical card has been pulled. >> Do you think they might have factored in, just a little bit, >>> that Microsoft subsidized their higher tech console in the billions, yet [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > million more consoles and passed up the XBox pretty easily, if they had > been willing to lose $billions like Microsoft did. Well, you fail to realize two things. 1) No one tells people what to buy. 2) Nintendo's days of being #1 are long gone. People of today cannot even recall when they were the top dog. So N could not have passed MS if they wanted to. Also, MS is new to this and still beat out N. Heck, Sega was well on the > way to doing that with the Dreamcast, they just couldn't convince anybody > that they could sustain the losses (because they couldn't) and lost > crucial third party support because of it. > > It seems to me that the bigger concern from Nintendo is getting trounced > twice in a row by Sony, especially in Japan. Japan is no longer important as most of the hottest software no longer comes from them. They are actually struggling to stay in the game. Note that most of their > strategy revolves mainly around competing with Sony (or not, to some > extent, as it turns out) rather than Microsoft. No matter who you claim they want to do battle with, they are not equipped for either. >>> Even Iwata has stated that improving graphics is a valid way to improve >>> a console. They have just decided to move in a different direction. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Could bii. Wii wiil see, won't wii? We will. This will either be N's last stand or one hell of a come back. However, I do not see them becoming #1. >>> I really get a laugh out of this "they cannot compete" BS some people >>> like to throw out there. How, exactly, can they not compete? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Perhaps you need a refresher on the difference between the words "can" and > "will." If you have will, then you can. No will means that you cannot. >> Nintendo is not >>> Sega of the 90's, you know. Do they not have many, many billions of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Really? Dig into the actual facts and you may find otherwise. No need to dig, it is already known. >> Do they not have a revenue generating machine in the DS, and >>> even the GBA? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > if you prefer, means a lot when we are talking about Nintendo's financial > ability to compete. Well that DS will be all that they can get paid off of in the future. >> Do they not have exactly the same manufacturing capacity as >>> MS? (Essentially, none?) The only thing stopping Nintendo from making [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Who knows, you might even turn out to be right about that. It doesn't > make my statement any less accurate. Yes. N does not have the technology. >> I also think that they do not have the technological know-how to do it >> and they are so stuck on trying to make it look like a kid's toy that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You really think the Wii looks like a kid's toy? Seriously? Yep. N likes to make things colorful, small/cute, small media or large media and small system. They seem to be afriad to actually think out of their childish box. They need to do it like the olds days and have a different design for the US. >>>> Wii alone will not be enough it carry them through. This is the last >>>> that we will see of Nintendo in the home arena. Now, I await Mario on [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Yes, and Sega was in terrible financial shape and was on the verge of > bankruptcy, too. What helped that along? Saturn, Sega CD and 32X? Those are serious bombs. I know N did not have bombs like those(Virtual boy), but not having the top spot just means that you are doing business but not dominating the market. The Dreamcast was their last gasp effort at making it in > the console business, and it was a damn fine effort. It was. I still miss that system... The tie-in ratio for > the Dreamcast was incredible. In the end, though, valid doubts about > their financial stability lead publishers like EA to deliberately ignore > the console, and I think a lot of the casual gaming market felt the same > way. It is the good thing that they did, or we would not have had 2K Sports. > How does this tie in to what is happening to Nintendo? Answer - it > doesn't. Sega was on the verge of bankruptcy; Nintendo is very profitable. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > like to see Nintendo follow the same path, but so far they are refusing to > do so. >>> Do you think it was lost on them >>>> that technology was not the determining factor in each of the last two [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > yourself in a position where you are handicapped if the gimmick controller > does not work. Right now, Nintnedo's techical card has been pulled. If the gimmick controller doesn't work, it hardly matters how powerful the console is. Nintendo loses in that case, anyway, and probably loses a lot of money, too. >>> Do you think they might have factored in, just a little bit, >>>> that Microsoft subsidized their higher tech console in the billions, [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > recall when they were the top dog. So N could not have passed MS if they > wanted to. Also, MS is new to this and still beat out N. Nintendo could easily have subsidized game development in certain areas and passed up Microsoft. They could have bought developers like Bungie, for instance, the way Microsoft did. They could have lowered the price of the console even more than they did. It would have lost them billions on the console, but hey, it's just money, right? Well, when you have an operating system monopoly you can think that way. When you don't, you can't. > Heck, Sega was well on the >> way to doing that with the Dreamcast, they just couldn't convince anybody [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Japan is no longer important as most of the hottest software no longer > comes from them. They are actually struggling to stay in the game. No longer important? Maybe it's not as important as it used to be, but it's still a huge market and still accounts for a lot of popular console games, including games popular in the US and Europe. > Note that most of their >> strategy revolves mainly around competing with Sony (or not, to some [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > If you have will, then you can. No will means that you cannot. Ummm... sure. >>> Nintendo is not >>>> Sega of the 90's, you know. Do they not have many, many billions of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > No need to dig, it is already known. Apparently not. >>> Do they not have a revenue generating machine in the DS, and >>>> even the GBA? [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Yes. N does not have the technology. lol. What technology would that be? The GPU designed by ATI? The CPU designed by IBM? Hmmm, that sure sounds familiar... now which console manufacturer decided to copy Nintendo this time around by contracting with exactly the same partners? Starts with an M... Mic... darn, I can't think of it. >>> I also think that they do not have the technological know-how to do it >>> and they are so stuck on trying to make it look like a kid's toy that [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > their childish box. They need to do it like the olds days and have a > different design for the US. Colorful? Let's see, there's black, and then there's white... wow, a lot of color there, to be sure! The Wii looks just like something Apple would have come up with. How is that childish? How is that ill fitting for the US market? Yes, it's small. Since when was that a bad thing in consumer electronics? >>>>> Wii alone will not be enough it carry them through. This is the last >>>>> that we will see of Nintendo in the home arena. Now, I await Mario [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > the top spot just means that you are doing business but not dominating the > market. That didn't help, but I think it was mainly the implosion of the arcade market that brought Sega to its knees. >>>> Do you think it was lost on them >>>>> that technology was not the determining factor in each of the last two [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > operating system monopoly you can think that way. When you don't, you > can't. It has nothing to do with their having an OS monopoly, it is about capital. As I told you beofre and only now you admit it, N does not have the capital to deal with the big boys. I don't even think that N prepared or even though of a day where the games industry would be taken over by giant corporations. I think they thought that it would always be in the hands of game developers. In a way, that should be the case, but Sony gave the people what they wanted while N gave people what N wanted, and they are still doing that. How much longer can they do that? >> Heck, Sega was well on the >>> way to doing that with the Dreamcast, they just couldn't convince [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > it's still a huge market and still accounts for a lot of popular console > games, including games popular in the US and Europe. Nah. Right now the Japanese are strugling to find themselves. They are lost. All they have been doinf is making sequel afters sequel and testing their games with various elements of GTA. >> Note that most of their >>> strategy revolves mainly around competing with Sony (or not, to some [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Ummm... sure. lol... >>>> Nintendo is not >>>>> Sega of the 90's, you know. Do they not have many, many billions of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Apparently not. You admitted it above. >>>> Do they not have a revenue generating machine in the DS, and >>>>> even the GBA? [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > exactly the same partners? Starts with an M... Mic... darn, I can't think > of it. Well N must have ordered the cheapest products from those comapnies while MS ordered some of the best. >>>> I also think that they do not have the technological know-how to do it >>>> and they are so stuck on trying to make it look like a kid's toy that [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Colorful? Let's see, there's black, and then there's white... wow, a lot > of color there, to be sure! Like I said - small. > The Wii looks just like something Apple would have come up with. How is > that childish? How is that ill fitting for the US market? Yes, it's > small. Since when was that a bad thing in consumer electronics? Look at A/V recievers. The bigger the better and mosr expensive. The smaller, the worse and cheaper they are. Now they are making recievers with digital amps and cutting the size in half(JVC and a couple of other companies anyway), but the despite the power, it is percieved as cheap. Sales will tell us exactly how it works out. >>>>>> Wii alone will not be enough it carry them through. This is the last >>>>>> that we will see of Nintendo in the home arena. Now, I await Mario [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > That didn't help, but I think it was mainly the implosion of the arcade > market that brought Sega to its knees. It could be, but they still released arcade games. >> Colorful? Let's see, there's black, and then there's white... wow, a lot >> of color there, to be sure! > > Like I said - small. No, not exactly what you said. You said it was also colourful. which it doesn't appear to be, anymore than Xbox360 or PS3. It's small with clean lines, inspired it seems from Apple, yet you still complain? How the hell can you complain about it's small size?! Although I don't think the size is particularly the issue with you. You're too concerned about it making you "Kiddy". Why?! It's rather odd seeing a middle aged man fret over such things, don't you think?. >>> Colorful? Let's see, there's black, and then there's white... wow, a >>> lot [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > too concerned about it making you "Kiddy". Why?! It's rather odd seeing a > middle aged man fret over such things, don't you think?. Since when is 33 middle-aged? You know that Nintendo is about kiddy things first. Even when they know they have to get serious, they still choose not to. >> Although I don't think the size is particularly the issue with you. >> You're [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > first. Even when they know they have to get serious, they still choose not > to. LMFAO you're 33?! I offered middle aged as bait and you delivered. 30-f.cking- 3. You must be kidding [no pun intended]. I want to study you. Where are you from? What's your motivation? Why at the age of 33 are you so caught up in worrying about what's “kiddy” and what's not? Do you find that in real life adults don't take you seriously? Do you compensate by distancing yourself from, and feeling resentment to, anything which may appear "kiddy"? Seriously, what's the deal? >>> Although I don't think the size is particularly the issue with you. >>> You're [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > anything > which may appear "kiddy"? Seriously, what's the deal? I had a feeling that you were setting me up. I was born into and grew up in the videogame age. Am I supposed to stop playing at a certain age? If you feel that my being 33 means that I should not be concerned with kiddy games, then you should understand how I feel about Nintendo. You don't tell me what to like, when to stop being involved in it or whatever. 30 f.cking 3. Yep. What are you - 10? Whatever your age, you are here... >> I want to study you. Where are you from? What's your motivation? Why at >> the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I had a feeling that you were setting me up. I was born into and grew up in > the videogame age. Am I supposed to stop playing at a certain age? Why are you asking that question? I didn't say you should stop playing. In fact I didn't tell you to stop doing anything. I asked you: why are you so concerned about something being "kiddy". You get many kids, particularly 13-15 year olds who mock each other for being kiddy or babyish. At that age kids want to appear grown up, so it's somewhat understandable. What surprise me is to see a 33 year old do the same thing. Again, I'm not asking you to stop, I'm just wondering why you do it. >>> I want to study you. Where are you from? What's your motivation? Why at >>> the [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > same thing. Again, I'm not asking you to stop, I'm just wondering why you > do it. Well, I only do it to Nintendo because they are the only ones making products with a kiddy look and style. It is ok to have that, but not market your whole thing towards it. >> I asked you: why are you so concerned about something being "kiddy". You >> get many kids, particularly 13-15 year olds who mock each other for being [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > products with a kiddy look and style. It is ok to have that, but not market > your whole thing towards it. Even if what you say is true, that they're marketing the product with a kiddy image, or whatever you're trying to say - why shouldn't they, and why does it concern you so much? Does a Playstation appeal to you more? Well then buy that one instead. Honestly I've never met an adult (a 33 year old one at that) who is as concerned with a product being "kiddy" as you are. It's odd behaviour, and that's an understatement. >>> I asked you: why are you so concerned about something being "kiddy". You >>> get many kids, particularly 13-15 year olds who mock each other for [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > concerned with a product being "kiddy" as you are. It's odd behaviour, and > that's an understatement. Well if you don't like it, don't worry about it. I can have my opinions even if you don't like them or if they are different from what you are used to. Not standing up for "Guest" as I don't think his arguments against Nintendo are all that compelling, but... > Honestly I've never met an adult (a 33 year old one at that) who is as > concerned with a product being "kiddy" as you are. It's odd behaviour, and > that's an understatement. I have, and it seems to be an ingrained thing that comes from having that mindset as a teenager. I've tried to convince my friend that Nintendo don't just do "kiddy" games, but he's having none of it. It's run-of-the-mill mainstream FPS's all the way for him. I don't think it's odd behaviour, just extremely closed-minded. But that opens another debate, is it wrong to be "mainstream". I find that the people who think Nintendo is kiddy are the people who go out and buy the latest, "greatest", most-hyped game. The game might be sh*t and I might find it boring, but they are perfectly happy with it. It's like music I guess. It's just a personal thing. Pete > Not standing up for "Guest" as I don't think his arguments against > Nintendo are all that compelling, but... [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Pete Well you did not stand up for me too well. If you read my other posts, you will see why I called Nintendo kiddy. It is not just their focus on games(which includes tricking young kids into buying 20 year old games repackaged as new), but from the design of their systems and media. Nothing wrong with attracting children, but at least MS and Sony understand that others like gaming also and you see how their business has been... > I have, and it seems to be an ingrained thing that comes from having > that mindset as a teenager. I've tried to convince my friend that > Nintendo don't just do "kiddy" games, but he's having none of it. It's > run-of-the-mill mainstream FPS's all the way for him. I don't think it's > odd behaviour, just extremely closed-minded. I completely agree with what you said. But I'm not having a go at someone for their preference. What I find odd is Guest’s almost obsession with "kiddyness”. He's been doing this for many many months, it's not just a passing comment. Sometime back he was going on about how gameBOY is kiddy, and saying that if it wasn't, they would have called it gameMAN instead. And how therefore only kiddies and Nintendo employees have ever played it(!) And since then he's been stuck on the same groove: "kiddy console", "kiddy handhelds" , "kiddy games" , “kiddy colours" , “kiddy shape" , "small is for kiddies" "kiddy media", "kiddy discs" "kiddy cartridges"... goes on and on. You could expect this from someone trying to look grown up, but considering his age, it's not only strange, it's ironic. >> I have, and it seems to be an ingrained thing that comes from having >> that mindset as a teenager. I've tried to convince my friend that [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > considering > his age, it's not only strange, it's ironic. Oh boy. I did not see you once write about people writing the same BS to defend Nintendo. "Great controller," "it's not about graphics, it's the games," "we sold X amount of DS's," " the GC was last, but the DS is #1," "Nintendo makes profits," "Sony is too powerful," "Nintendo does not have to compete" and so on. Instead, you want to (again) inject an BS argument to steer attention from my 100% correct points. You know, when you cannot win an argument via proof, resort to the "your stupid" BS which indicates that you submit, but hate to. > Honestly I've never met an adult (a 33 year old one at that) who is as > concerned with a product being "kiddy" as you are. It's odd behaviour, and > that's an understatement. Well one possibility is that he's simply lying about his age... As Guest acts like a particularly insecure 11 year old, the most natural explanation would seem to be that he _is_ a particularly insecure 11 year old. -Miles  Signature80% of success is just showing up. --Woody Allen >> Honestly I've never met an adult (a 33 year old one at that) who is as >> concerned with a product being "kiddy" as you are. It's odd behaviour, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > -Miles Some of you people take talking about videogames much too far. You people think that "I" have some problem? >>>>> Do you think it was lost on them >>>>>> that technology was not the determining factor in each of the last [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > capital. As I told you beofre and only now you admit it, N does not have > the capital to deal with the big boys. Do you even have a basic understanding of what the word "capital" means in economic terms? Nintendo has a huge amount of cash reserves that they could invest in a console, if that's what they wanted to do. More than Sony, in fact. That's the very definition of "capital." They also have almost no debt (unlike Sony) which means that they could leverage even more - if that's what they wanted to do. The thing is, they don't want to do that. They don't have a Windows monopoly to cover up the inevitable losses the way Microsoft does. Neither does Sony, and I think you'll see the company in trouble if the PS3 is not a huge success. Of course, Sony also has their own strategies revolving around movies, consumer electronics, and media formats, all of which factor into what they are doing with the PS3, and that has to be kept in mind as well. None of those things apply to Nintendo. > I don't even think that N prepared or even though of a day where the games > industry would be taken over by giant corporations. I think they thought > that it would always be in the hands of game developers. In a way, that > should be the case, but Sony gave the people what they wanted while N gave > people what N wanted, and they are still doing that. How much longer can > they do that? Seems to me that the industry is still in the hands of the game developers (or publishers, anyway) because they help determine who lives and who dies by the systems they support and the games they make. It also seems to me that Nintendo is doing something right with the Wii, because they have more third party developer interest now than I've seen since the early days of the N64. That's not surprising considering that the Wii has been specifically designed to keep development costs down (publishers love this) while still providing something new and interesting to play with (developers love this.) And hey, if it doesn't work, if the Wii doesn't fly with consumers, it didn't cost the third parties much, now did it? On the other hand, if you make an 8 figure game for the XBox or PS3, it better be a big seller or your company might be in trouble. >>> Heck, Sega was well on the >>>> way to doing that with the Dreamcast, they just couldn't convince [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > lost. All they have been doinf is making sequel afters sequel and testing > their games with various elements of GTA. Right, US games never have endless, repetitive sequels. lol. >>> Note that most of their >>>> strategy revolves mainly around competing with Sony (or not, to some [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] > Well N must have ordered the cheapest products from those comapnies while > MS ordered some of the best. So what? Nintendo could have ordered the most expensive parts possible from ATI or IBM, if they had wanted to. That's my point. Microsoft doesn't have a technology advantage over Nintendo when it comes to manufacturing. Do they have different goals? Yes. Do they have different capabilities? No. >>>>> I also think that they do not have the technological know-how to do it >>>>> and they are so stuck on trying to make it look like a kid's toy that [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Like I said - small. I see... so they should have made a big honking case that takes up a lot of room, even though it wasn't necessary? Makes sense to me. >> The Wii looks just like something Apple would have come up with. How is >> that childish? How is that ill fitting for the US market? Yes, it's [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > companies anyway), but the despite the power, it is percieved as cheap. > Sales will tell us exactly how it works out. So that one ambiguous example is your proof that bigger is better in consumer electronics? Somebody better tell Microsoft, then. They must have had it right with their big XBox case, rather than the sleeker, smaller 360. I guess Sony wasted their time making the PS2 smaller, too. Since when was it the trend for consumer electronics to get bigger, rather than smaller? I think I would have to say, since never. Usually they are made to be as small as possible, given the needs of the components inside. >>>>>>> Wii alone will not be enough it carry them through. This is the >>>>>>> last that we will see of Nintendo in the home arena. Now, I await [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > It could be, but they still released arcade games. Sure, they just didn't sell like they used to. They also had a hard time with the arcades that they owned. >>>>>> Do you think it was lost on them >>>>>>> that technology was not the determining factor in each of the last [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > economic terms? Nintendo has a huge amount of cash reserves that they > could invest in a console, if that's what they wanted to do. It did not did they? They want to rely on trickery and gimmicks this time. They could not afford it. More than Sony, in > fact. That's the very definition of "capital." They also have almost no > debt (unlike Sony) which means that they could leverage even more - if > that's what they wanted to do. The thing is, they don't want to do that. They can't do that. While I am sure that N could get a loan, I would rather laon more money to SOny who has may different ventures instead of N who only has one. That one could be the one to end the company as we know it. > They don't have a Windows monopoly to cover up the inevitable losses the > way Microsoft does. It sounds like you are a hater. There is no such thing as a Windows monoply. Are there Windows made by others? Just because others cannot compete, they hate. Sony and MS. The two biggest (Sony 2nd biggest, but most popular) comapnies in their fields, hated by all competitors and people who hate. Neither does Sony, and I think you'll see the company in > trouble if the PS3 is not a huge success. Mayb, but N would be hurt more than Sony would. Sony will still be here, but N might be gone. Of course, Sony also has their > own strategies revolving around movies, consumer electronics, and media > formats, all of which factor into what they are doing with the PS3, and [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > (or publishers, anyway) because they help determine who lives and who dies > by the systems they support and the games they make. Money seems to determine that. It also seems to me > that Nintendo is doing something right with the Wii, because they have > more third party developer interest now than I've seen since the early > days of the N64. If I were a developer, I would develop for the Wii also. Not because I like it, but it is new and it is good to test the water and see where it is at. That's not surprising considering that the Wii has been > specifically designed to keep development costs down (publishers love > this) while still providing something new and interesting to play with > (developers love this.) And hey, if it doesn't work, if the Wii doesn't > fly with consumers, it didn't cost the third parties much, now did it? On > the other hand, if you make an 8 figure game for the XBox or PS3, it > better be a big seller or your company might be in trouble. I think investment numbers a grossly inflated. No one ask these people to put celbreites in the games or hire actors. >>>> Heck, Sega was well on the >>>>> way to doing that with the Dreamcast, they just couldn't convince [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Right, US games never have endless, repetitive sequels. lol. Not the good games. Maby theose PC games, but not consoles. >>>> Note that most of their >>>>> strategy revolves mainly around competing with Sony (or not, to some [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > I see... so they should have made a big honking case that takes up a lot > of room, even though it wasn't necessary? Makes sense to me. Nope. Just not restrict themselves with that tiny thing. Nintendo's marketing people should be fired. >>> The Wii looks just like something Apple would have come up with. How is >>> that childish? If you say so. I never bought into the Apple hype devices myself. They are terribly over priced. How is that ill fitting for the US market? Yes, it's >>> small. Since when was that a bad thing in consumer electronics? For portables - no. For home systems - that is a problem. When consumers see the 360 and PS3 next to the thiny Wii, they will assume that the Wii is under powered. Not to mention people(ncluding the sales people) will let people know why the Wii is so small. >> Look at A/V recievers. The bigger the better and mosr expensive. The >> smaller, the worse and cheaper they are. Now they are making recievers [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > So that one ambiguous example is your proof that bigger is better in > consumer electronics? Yep. Somebody better tell Microsoft, then. They must have > had it right with their big XBox case, rather than the sleeker, smaller > 360. I guess Sony wasted their time making the PS2 smaller, too. The 360 is smaller, but it is not that small. > Since when was it the trend for consumer electronics to get bigger, rather > than smaller? I think I would have to say, since never. Usually they are [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Sure, they just didn't sell like they used to. They also had a hard time > with the arcades that they owned. We need some serious snipping here! > They can't do that. While I am sure that N could get a loan, I would rather > laon more money to SOny who has may different ventures instead of N who only > has one. That one could be the one to end the company as we know it. Never put all your eggs into one basket, that's what my grandmother always told me. On the flipside, "focus" can be a good thing. Do one thing and do it well, rather than be a jack of all trades and master of none. >> They don't have a Windows monopoly to cover up the inevitable losses the >> way Microsoft does. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > most popular) comapnies in their fields, hated by all competitors and people > who hate. Indeed people do hate big *successful* corporations. It's all part of having a lot of money and power. Envy is a human emotion that will never be eradicated and everybody feels that emotion at some point in their lives. Why does it sound like El Guapo is a "hater" though? He's only pointing out what is true. Microsoft have money to burn, so why not use that money to penetrate the market deeply? You may incur huge losses in the beginning, but the long term benefits could easily outweigh this. >> Neither does Sony, and I think you'll see the company in >> trouble if the PS3 is not a huge success. > > Mayb, but N would be hurt more than Sony would. Sony will still be here, > but N might be gone. It will be a sad day for me if this were to ever happen. I hope it doesn't. > It also seems to me >> that Nintendo is doing something right with the Wii, because they have [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > If I were a developer, I would develop for the Wii also. Not because I like > it, but it is new and it is good to test the water and see where it is at. Exactly, you don't have to like something yourself in order to appreciate that others might. > That's not surprising considering that the Wii has been >> specifically designed to keep development costs down (publishers love [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I think investment numbers a grossly inflated. No one ask these people to > put celbreites in the games or hire actors. This is true, but I guess it boosts sales and money is after all, the thing that drives the console business. >>> Nah. Right now the Japanese are strugling to find themselves. They are >>> lost. All they have been doinf is making sequel afters sequel and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Not the good games. Maby theose PC games, but not consoles. I'm not sure that's a valid comment. I don't have enough insight into what you mean by "US" games, but certainly there are many console-based sequels from western developers. Whether you consider them repetetive is down to personal opinion. Sometimes all people seem to want is more of the same. If people didn't buy sequels, they wouldn't make them. >> I see... so they should have made a big honking case that takes up a lot >> of room, even though it wasn't necessary? Makes sense to me. > > Nope. Just not restrict themselves with that tiny thing. Nintendo's > marketing people should be fired. Like El Guapo, I'm confused on this point. Surely small is beautiful? That's what my girlfriend tells me... ;) Seriously though, I have trouble hiding my early PS2 away and consoles past-to-present just look a mess in general. I'm glad that this "next generation" has ushered in some more lounge-friendly kit. >>>> The Wii looks just like something Apple would have come up with. How is >>>> that childish? > > If you say so. I never bought into the Apple hype devices myself. They are > terribly over priced. Sounds like the PS3 to me (and that's coming from a Sony supporter, who until this year was committed to buying a PS3). At that price, they can stick it up their hoop. I'll be getting an XBox360 now and probably a Wii just to see how I get on with it. > How is that ill fitting for the US market? Yes, it's >>>> small. Since when was that a bad thing in consumer electronics? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > under powered. Not to mention people(ncluding the sales people) will let > people know why the Wii is so small. Consumers, most of whom will be clued-up about the whole thing before they go to purchase. Let's face it, the whole marketing thing hasn't moved forward since the 80's. I was talking with my girlfriend about what the XBox360 could do and she was surprised that it could act as a Media Centre extender, that it could play back movies and music etc. She said that she was sure that if it were marketed to women in that way, they would sell more units. I'm inclined to agree, but even with Nintendo trying to bring on board more female gamers with games like Nintendogs, how can they expect to reel them in without communicating to them? I've never seen a console advert in a women's magazine (here in the UK). Gaming is still the domain of geeky teenagers, it's just that many of them (like me) are in their 30s now... >> Somebody better tell Microsoft, then. They must have >> had it right with their big XBox case, rather than the sleeker, smaller >> 360. I guess Sony wasted their time making the PS2 smaller, too. > > The 360 is smaller, but it is not that small. The 360 is a nice size given that it's quite nice to look at too. Next to a PS2 or XBox, it'd have to be a 360. If I had to choose between the design of the 360 and the Wii, then I think I'd choose the Wii. It's just a bit more classic. The 360 is very "now" and will look good for a few years, but in ten year's time, will it still look so good? I'm just not sure... That's just my tuppence worth (or 2 cents worth for our US friends). Now can we see an end to this boring debate please?! :P Pete > We need some serious snipping here! > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > that money to penetrate the market deeply? You may incur huge losses in > the beginning, but the long term benefits could easily outweigh this. Well, he keep referring to MS as having a "Windows monopoly" as if there are others who make Windows. He also says that as if that is a bad thing. Gates was able to make it happen. There are other compeitors out there, but those who use them mainly do so to try and stick it ti Gates. It's the same thing with Sony. Audiophiles like the say that Sony products suck. I know that they are lying, but they say it because when the average person thinks of electronics, Sony is the first name that they know. There was a time when some people use to brag about having a Sony. I guess that was when theiir TV's were very over priced. Now their pricing is more in line with other manufacturers. I prefer JVC on TV's and Panasonic on DVD/camcorders. >>> Neither does Sony, and I think you'll see the company in >>> trouble if the PS3 is not a huge success. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Exactly, you don't have to like something yourself in order to appreciate > that others might. Right. You may even be surprised as the machine could take off more than you expected. >> That's not surprising considering that the Wii has been >>> specifically designed to keep development costs down (publishers love [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > I'm not sure that's a valid comment. I don't have enough insight into what > you mean by "US" games, Games made by companies in the US... but certainly there are many console-based > sequels from western developers. I don't know what you mean by 'western.' Western to me is the western part of the US. If you are talking western Europe, that is them. Different mindset and culture. I see them as I see the Japanese, only boring. Whether you consider them repetetive is > down to personal opinion. Sometimes all people seem to want is more of the > same. If people didn't buy sequels, they wouldn't make them. Well, if magazines did not ALWAYS hype them up(payola), then different generations would not be interested in the same old titles. Let's get real. Is a new Castlvania REALLY getting you excited? I lost my excitement for that game after the SNES version. After that, it is the same old sh.t. In fact, what has Konami done lately? All they have been doing is making sequel after sequel to 20 year old games. >>> I see... so they should have made a big honking case that takes up a lot >>> of room, even though it wasn't necessary? Makes sense to me. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > stick it up their hoop. I'll be getting an XBox360 now and probably a Wii > just to see how I get on with it. Well, when you get that Wii, you might as well have gotten a PS3 with the combined price. The only thing it, if that PS3 takes off, it puts the other two in position that they will have to figure out what to do. >> How is that ill fitting for the US market? Yes, it's >>>>> small. Since when was that a bad thing in consumer electronics? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > expect to reel them in without communicating to them? I've never seen a > console advert in a women's magazine (here in the UK). You could be right. Maybe that will change once MS see Wii's marketing strtaegy. To be honest, marketing here(US) is very different than it is out there. The UK, Europe and Japan often have similar marketing schemes. In those markets, products are made and marketed in a way that it is assumed that the people have some strong technical understanding of the product and what it will do. An example would be calling the Sega Geneis the Mega Drive in those markets. I guess they figured you guys would know what that was, but the US people would not. They may have been correct. It seems as if most people here jsut want to know what it does, if it can do it and if it is cheap. > Gaming is still the domain of geeky teenagers, it's just that many of them > (like me) are in their 30s now... Maybe. No teenager can beat me... >>> Somebody better tell Microsoft, then. They must have >>> had it right with their big XBox case, rather than the sleeker, smaller [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Pete We need some serious snipping here! > They can't do that. While I am sure that N could get a loan, I would rather > laon more money to SOny who has may different ventures instead of N who only > has one. That one could be the one to end the company as we know it. Never put all your eggs into one basket, that's what my grandmother always told me. On the flipside, "focus" can be a good thing. Do one thing and do it well, rather than be a jack of all trades and master of none. >> They don't have a Windows monopoly to cover up the inevitable losses the >> way Microsoft does. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > most popular) comapnies in their fields, hated by all competitors and people > who hate. Indeed people do hate big *successful* corporations. It's all part of having a lot of money and power. Envy is a human emotion that will never be eradicated and everybody feels that emotion at some point in their lives. Why does it sound like El Guapo is a "hater" though? He's only pointing out what is true. Microsoft have money to burn, so why not use that money to penetrate the market deeply? You may incur huge losses in the beginning, but the long term benefits could easily outweigh this. >> Neither does Sony, and I think you'll see the company in >> trouble if the PS3 is not a huge success. > > Mayb, but N would be hurt more than Sony would. Sony will still be here, > but N might be gone. It will be a sad day for me if this were to ever happen. I hope it doesn't. > It also seems to me >> that Nintendo is doing something right with the Wii, because they have [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > If I were a developer, I would develop for the Wii also. Not because I like > it, but it is new and it is good to test the water and see where it is at. Exactly, you don't have to like something yourself in order to appreciate that others might. > That's not surprising considering that the Wii has been >> specifically designed to keep development costs down (publishers love [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I think investment numbers a grossly inflated. No one ask these people to > put celbreites in the games or hire actors. This is true, but I guess it boosts sales and money is after all, the thing that drives the console business. >>> Nah. Right now the Japanese are strugling to find themselves. They are >>> lost. All they have been doinf is making sequel afters sequel and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Not the good games. Maby theose PC games, but not consoles. I'm not sure that's a valid comment. I don't have enough insight into what you mean by "US" games, but certainly there are many console-based sequels from western developers. Whether you consider them repetetive is down to personal opinion. Sometimes all people seem to want is more of the same. If people didn't buy sequels, they wouldn't make them. >> I see... so they should have made a big honking case that takes up a lot >> of room, even though it wasn't necessary? Makes sense to me. > > Nope. Just not restrict themselves with that tiny thing. Nintendo's > marketing people should be fired. Like El Guapo, I'm confused on this point. Surely small is beautiful? That's what my girlfriend tells me... ;) Seriously though, I have trouble hiding my early PS2 away and consoles past-to-present just look a mess in general. I'm glad that this "next generation" has ushered in some more lounge-friendly kit. >>>> The Wii looks just like something Apple would have come up with. How is >>>> that childish? > > If you say so. I never bought into the Apple hype devices myself. They are > terribly over priced. Sounds like the PS3 to me (and that's coming from a Sony supporter, who until this year was committed to buying a PS3). At that price, they can stick it up their hoop. I'll be getting an XBox360 now and probably a Wii just to see how I get on with it. > How is that ill fitting for the US market? Yes, it's >>>> small. Since when was that a bad thing in consumer electronics? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > under powered. Not to mention people(ncluding the sales people) will let > people know why the Wii is so small. Consumers, most of whom will be clued-up about the whole thing before they go to purchase. Let's face it, the whole marketing thing hasn't moved forward since the 80's. I was talking with my girlfriend about what the XBox360 could do and she was surprised that it could act as a Media Centre extender, that it could play back movies and music etc. She said that she was sure that if it were marketed to women in that way, they would sell more units. I'm inclined to agree, but even with Nintendo trying to bring on board more female gamers with games like Nintendogs, how can they expect to reel them in without communicating to them? I've never seen a console advert in a women's magazine (here in the UK). Gaming is still the domain of geeky teenagers, it's just that many of them (like me) are in their 30s now... >> Somebody better tell Microsoft, then. They must have >> had it right with their big XBox case, rather than the sleeker, smaller >> 360. I guess Sony wasted their time making the PS2 smaller, too. > > The 360 is smaller, but it is not that small. The 360 is a nice size given that it's quite nice to look at too. Next to a PS2 or XBox, it'd have to be a 360. If I had to choose between the design of the 360 and the Wii, then I think I'd choose the Wii. It's just a bit more classic. The 360 is very "now" and will look good for a few years, but in ten year's time, will it still look so good? I'm just not sure... That's just my tuppence worth (or 2 cents worth for our US friends). Now can we see an end to this boring debate please?! :P Pete > 1. Nintendo has no HDTV, thats mega LAME! But it has EDTV, i.e. 480p widescreen. That looks good on my HDTV with the Gamecube, so I'm guessing it will look good with the Wii. Greg Christoph Kögler wrote: > 1. Nintendo has no HDTV, thats mega LAME! But it has EDTV, i.e. 480p widescreen. That looks good on my HDTV with the Gamecube, so I'm guessing it will look good with the Wii. Greg Like he said - lame! |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.