Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Lusts Nintendo, To Little Avail
Richard Finney writes "The online version of Forbes Magazine says that Bill Gates has expressed an interest in buying Nintendo from Japanese billionaire Hiroshi Yamauchi." Though this news seems to have been part of a theoretical 'what if' question, the story reports: "'If Hiroshi Yamauchi phones me up, i will pick up at once,' Gates told WirtschaftsWoche magazine on the sidelines of an analyst conference."
...these stories based on idle speculation that company A might buy company B are utterly worthless. There really must be enough News For Nerds that we don't need three of these every day.
I agree wholeheartedly. I havn't played my Gamecube in months because of the lack of software for it. Nintendo should stick to what it's good at, making kick ass games. Their stupid decisions reguarding hardware got old two generations ago.
I'm the guy with the unpopular opinion
Gates wanted to buy out Nintendo years ago; his failure to do so led directly to the decision to produce the XBox.
If Gates is interested again in buying Nintendo, this would seem to be to be a strong indication that the XBox is underperforming, and Microsoft is looking for a new way to compete with Sony in the console market.
www.kitchengeek.com -- Nosh for
wasn't it about 2 years ago or so that there was speculation that MS wanted to buy Sega? I guess that didn't pan out, so they are going down the line.
This would probably explain why Microsoft isn't setting their sights on beating Nintendo in the actual market.
They just plan on flatout buying them.
Insert Sig Here
Gates only watched himself turning on the WhatIf machine with his finglonger when he asked the question, "What if I invented the finglonger?"
The only thing I hate more than hypocrites are people who hate hypocrites.
If Gates gets anywhere near Nintendo, I will personally throttle the damn dirty bastard.
Nintendo is a name that brings me joy.
Microsoft is a name that makes me want to break stuff.
Two words: 1 game.
I recently purchased a GameCube, and I have had a grand time picking up the classics (Metroid, Zelda, etc.) but the current and future libraries are lacking.
You're assuming the FCC gives a shit anymore. Seeing how the DoJ folded in the anti-trust case, I think the FCC would roll over too.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
I don't think they have made any stupid decisions regarding hardware thought the GC controller is debatable. They have technically the best console out right now. The Xbox has slightly more capabilities but it is also much more expensive to produce. The problem Nintendo has is that is has not been good at attracting third party developers. They really need to get some good 3rd party exclusives to drive GC sales. Some 3rd party non-exclusives wouldn't kill them either.
but can MS afford it? Nintendo has a higher market value than Apple.. meaning it would be cheaper for MS to buy Apple than Nintendo.
You negelected to mention Square-Enix. Square-Enix would be invaluable to Microsoft. Not only would Sony lose one its most prominent exclusive developers, but Microsoft would gain exclusive rights to two of the most popular Japanese RPG series (Final Fantasy & Dragon Quest). The Dragon Quest games are so popular in Japan, that they have to be released on weekdends so kids don't skip school. If that doesn't help Microsoft gain traction in Japan, nothing will.
With all due respect, the games Nintendo makes run on nintendo spec'd hardware. Don't underestimate the hardwares role in defining what the developer can and cannot do. Would zelda TOOT have been the same game on the PS1? Hells no. Would F-zero GC be the same game if it were for Xbox? I strongly submit it would not, despite the Xbox's superior hardware.
Nintendo is one thing, if nothing else. A profitable company. More money in then money out.
If I were nintendo, I would invite Mr Gates to tea, a tour of the nintendo facilities, tell him a joke, ask how his stay in Japan was, and then thank him, but decline his no doubt flattering cash offer.
"Inattention makes clowns of us all" -Bean
I've never understand the position that a platform needs to have hundreds of great games. If it merely has, say, twenty truly great games, that would provide me with hundreds of hours of great game play which would more than justify the cost of the system, so what's the problem? Why do so many people perfer a platform with tons of mediocre games (playstation) that you aren't going to play anyway? Why don't you come back in a few years after you've played through all of the great gc games and then tell us if the system is "lacking"?
I'd rather be lucky than good.
How about the decision to stick with the cartridge format for the N64 when all of the competition had moved to CDs (cost them Square's games, a major blow)? The abortion that was the N64 controller? How about the decision to use a miniature disc for the GC, thus making the GC unable to double as a DVD player while simultaneously decreasing the storage space available for media content such as voices, music, video, and high-resolution textures? Not a huge deal, but when your competition is offering that feature and you're not, it's just one more reason why a person may not buy your console. How about no backlight on the GB/GBA for years, up until the release of the GBA SP? I can understand no backlight on the GB, but when the GBA was designed there was no reason not to add a backlight. What about the aborted SNES CD expansion, which ultimately turned into the Sony Playstation and signed Nintendo's death warrant? And the worst of all ... wait for it ... VirtualBoy.
It's too soon to tell yet how the DS will turn out, but I'm afraid that the touch screen is going to be more pain than it's worth.
No, Nintendo may have monetarily the best console out right now (assuming it costs less to build than a PS2), but I don't think anyone would claim that the XBox is not the best technically. Two words: hard drive.
Nintendo used to be the best at attracting 3rd parties, but their rash of bad hardware mistakes (mostly starting with the N64, which they still have recovered from) caused them to lose many 3rd parties. Oh, and the GC does get 3rd party non-exclusives, but the problem is that while the GC ports may be better than the PS2 (not always the case, given that the PS2 has more storage space available on the disk, and a better controller), they can't hold a candle to the XBox port (see Splinter Cell and Splinter Cell: PT). I expect that a majority of GC owners also have a PS2 or XBox, and so when it comes to 3rd party non-exclusive titles they will either buy it for the platform it's released on first (XBox or PS2, depending on the game), or where it has more/better features (better graphics, online play, better controller, etc).
How about the decision to stick with the cartridge format for the N64 ...
I thought we were only talking about the current generation. Nintendo has definitely made hardware mistakes in the past. I really don't think the mini DVD is a mistake. What is the only current console that does not have widespread game copying? Nintendo knows what they are doing, I think.
No, Nintendo may have monetarily the best console out right now (assuming it costs less to build than a PS2), but I don't think anyone would claim that the XBox is not the best technically. Two words: hard drive.
No. The Xbox is an x86 kludge of a console. It is expensive and inelegant. The reason it has more capabilities is that has more high end (expensive) parts. Throwing money at a problem is not a good technical solution (i.e. paying for an expensive HD).
Oh, and the GC does get 3rd party non-exclusives, but the problem is that while the GC ports may be better than the PS2 (not always the case, given that the PS2 has more storage space available on the disk, and a better controller), they can't hold a candle to the XBox port (see Splinter Cell and Splinter Cell: PT). I expect that a majority of GC owners also have a PS2 or XBox, and so when it comes to 3rd party non-exclusive titles they will either buy it for the platform it's released on first (XBox or PS2, depending on the game), or where it has more/better features (better graphics, online play, better controller, etc).
The GC gets 3rd party exclusives but if they are successful they get ported to the PS2 (I know, not all of them do. I am exaggerating). Also, multiplatform games are rarely better on the Xbox than GC and sometimes, but even more rarely, better on the GC than Xbox. Granted, the PS2 version can sometimes be less impressive but the GC and Xbox are basically the same unless you have an HDTV. Like most people, I don't, so it makes little difference to me which system it is on.
First off, the cost for manufacturing XBoxes, like all the other consoles, has steadily been decreasing. Second, the Gamecube is a slightly more elegant PowerPC kludge of a console. The fact that the XBox is based on PC hardware doesn't make it any less of a console. And finally, what "problem" was Microsoft "throwing money at" to solve with a hard drive? You can still use memory cards, but putting a fixed storage device in a console is a very good idea.
That would define the games as non-exclusive then, huh? Would you care to provide any examples of this? The marketing just doesn't make sense. "Hey, let's spend a bunch of money to write an exclusive game for a marginal console. If it does well there, then we can spend even more money and port it to PS2." Why not just start on the PS2 immediately? Oh, and I'm referring to the US market, so if you want to mention Japanese games that are GC exclusive, they should be games that have already or will be released in the States.
Again, I'm going to have to ask for examples. For my part, take a look at the Splinter Cell games (better on XBox than GC or PS2), EA Sports' entire lineup (they're designed for PS2, but at least now the XBox ports will have online play -- GC still doesn't get the love there, and no the Warp Pipe project doesn't count), Prince of Persia (best on XBox), Soul Calibur II (again best on XBox with better graphics and game control, though fanboys will prefer the GC version for the Link character -- personally, I like Spawn), Rainbow Six 3 (well, pretty much every Ubi Soft game), and many more. Can you provide me examples of cross-platform games that were better on the GC? And games like Skies of Arcadia don't count, because that was only cross-platform for DreamCast and GC, not GC/PS2/XBox.
If the port is done properly, the PS2 version will always be less impressive because both the GC and XBox support higer resolution textures. That's not to say that ports are always done well, especially when it's a port from PS2 to GC/XBox. However, I wouldn't say that the GC and XBox "are basically the same". Oh, and speaking of HDTV, that's another Nintendo hardware bungle. They dropped the component output on recent GameCube hardware revisions, which is just plain stupid. Of course, it was a self-fulfilling prophecy when their marketting department looked at the usage of component output on GC, since they only sell the component cables direct from the Nintendo store, and not at regular retail joints. And speaking of non-HDTV, I don't know why, but my GC looks much worse via composite or S-Vid than my XBox. My GC apparently has issues with red pixels, making them appear very blocky and nasty, and bleed all over the place. It seems to be an inerlacing issue, though, because I have the same problem with component cables unless I switch to progressive mode. It's most visible on the red Nintendo oval logo at the start of each game, though you can also really notice it on Mario's hat in Mario Sunshine (horrible game, sold it not long after getting it "for free" with the purchase of my GC). In contrast, my XBox looks just fine on a comp
because the ex-president is the majority stock holder....
Well, it depends on your definition of 'great games'.
I've got an Xbox- Knights of the Old Republic is rated as one of the best Xbox games available. I don't like that kind of game. Grand Theft Auto Double Pack is also a 'great' game on the Xbox. I don't like that one either. Same with Prince of Persia.
But I like Splinter Cell, Halo, Crimson Skies, etc etc.
So, out of the 50 top games on the Xbox, I probably only like 25 or so.
In that case- (go with my logic here, not your opinion of Xbox games) does the Xbox have 50 great games, or does it have 25?
I know that the Gamecube does not have a lot of games that appeal to me. So if it has only 20 great games, but 17 of those don't appeal to me- I'm left with 3 games.
So I'd prefer more games- because it means I will have a better chance of finding games that *I* like.
So this isn't a knock on the Gamecube, but me just throwing in my opinion that everyone's definition of a great game will be different- and you can never have too many great games!
(Great game of the week? ESPN NFL 2K5)
No reason to lie.
Woo, that sent shivers down my spine. No. And just so we're clear here, no. Microsoft would ruin any Nintendo franchise. The reason? They're not Nintendo.
and, if there's a God, even play online...
Luckily, there isn't. Online Zelda? Have you ever PLAYED Zelda? Zelda sure, four swords made Zelda multiplayer seem a little less retarded than the concept would suggest, but all the same, Zelda is not the kind of franchise you can tranfers online.
On a slightly different note, I'd like to point out that making something "online" does not automatically make it better. In the same way that adding "XTREME!" or "X" to the end of a game's title, doesn't make it any better.
The argument is redundant anyway, Yamauchi won't being selling his stake in Nintendo. He's already a billionare, and Nintendo is and has been, his life.
Looks can be deceiving. Or CAN they?