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."

Comments

Giving Sony Competition

[Cpt_Kirks]

This could be interesting, the way train wrecks are interesting.

M$ and the big N together could give Sony fits.

MarioX, anyone?

Re:Giving Sony Competition

[AlexMax2742]

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.

Re:Giving Sony Competition

[Osty]

I don't think they have made any stupid decisions regarding hardware thought the GC controller is debatable

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.

They have technically the best console out right now. The Xbox has slightly more capabilities but it is also much more expensive to produce.

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.

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.

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).

Re:Giving Sony Competition

[Osty]

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).

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.

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).

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.

Also, multiplatform games are rarely better on the Xbox than GC and sometimes, but even more rarely, better on the GC than Xbox.

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.

Granted, the PS2 version can sometimes be less impressive but the GC and Xbox are basically the same unless you have an HDTV

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

Re:Giving Sony Competition

[bigman2003]

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)

As a rule...

[Anonymous Coward]

...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.

Behold!

[rayamor]

The Wintendo and the Super Microsoft Office Brothers.

Very Interesting Fishing Perhaps

[blueZhift]

The article makes it sound like idle talk, but statements from that level may actually have something behind them, but not what you may think at first. I mean Gates knows that he isn't likely to get the opportunity to buy Nintendo. But his statement lets people know that he's in the market. So maybe it won't be Nintendo, but some other prominent Japanese (or other) games company. Who knows? Would Namco, Konami, or Capcom turn him down? Any one of these, handled correctly, could get MS the traction they need in Japan to make the Xbox successor a success there and bolster the chances elsewhere in the world.

I think the next 18 months will be very interesting.

This is news?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's some news. I am interested in buying Microsoft, Nintendo, and Sony, and the company that makes generic marshmellows for Wal-Mart. Do I get a slashdot post now?

Microsoft or Bill Gates?

[Ianoo]

From the article, this sounds like Gates is interested in buying Nintendo, not Microsoft. But I guess if he owned them both and said "now let's merge" they'd jump to it.

Re:Microsoft or Bill Gates?

[AuMatar]

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.

Great

[dmomo]

Maybe Clippy and Mario can team up!
"It appears you like to [eat strange mushrooms and then break bricks with your head]. Would you like me to help you create a macro to [eat strange mushrooms and then break bricks with your head]?"

Re:RARE

[xenocide2]

Ironically, RARE has sole ownership of very little of its software. The Donkey Kong franchise remains Nintendo's, after Rare turned the Bond brand around with goldeneye, MGM decided to keep it to themselves, and they've also done a lot of games with Disney characters, who naturally remain part of Disney.

What I'd heard was the Stamper brothers wanted out of Rare, or possibly simply out of Nintendo's grip. Much of the talent behind goldeneye had already left to form Free Radical. Its amazing Microsoft purchased the company, really. Rare's offerings don't really mesh well with the XBox's heavily marketed demographics, and their in development titles are slowly achieving Duke Nukem Forever status.

If Micorosft were to purchase Nintendo, it would have to be accompanied by a shift in marketing, away from the xTreme appeal they're still making and towards a group and family situation. They'd also have to tell investors to choose between another high profile acquisition and their huge dividend boost, unless Gates was planning to do this with his 3 billion dollar share of the proceeds from said dividend.

Re:Takeover?

[prockcore]

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.

Square-Enix?

[andman42]

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.

Re:Not that trick again...

[kisrael]

Like I said before, your anecodtal observations mean VERY LITTLE. I know more people with a GC than w/ a PS2, but that doesn't mean there are more GCs out there. (And it's not a younger gamer thing...I'm 30 and most of my friends are in the same ballpark.)

I have all 3 consoles...GC is the only one that gets regular play, but that's probably because of my interest in multiplayer games. Or it's easier to lug around...Xbox is pretty good w/ Halo and Crimson Skies and Fusion Frenzy. PS2, except for a few oddball games, my main reason of still keeping it is to have GTA...

Anyway. I don't know why that "gee, my buddies don't have a GC, they must not sell" line bugs me so much.

Why buy the cow?

[hey!]

When you can buy the milk supply for a lot less?

I'd just hire away Shigeru Miyamoto.

Suppose you're willing to pay X dollars for the company. What do you get? You get name recognition, distribution channels, production facilities, engineering teams, all of which Microsoft already has or can readily buy. You also get the creative talent, which is the one thing you can't just walk out and buy anywhere.

So, insted of buying the company for X, I'd offer some hefty fraction of X to Miyamoto to jump ship, set aside a few milion to keep his noncompete in the courts for a decade or so and to indemnify him when he eventually loses.

But that's just me with my evil overlord thinking cap on.