Slashdot Mirror
Nintendo Won't Pull A Sega
AztecL0B0 writes "Nintendo Insider takes a look at the reasons why Nintendo is not leaving the console race anytime soon. From the article: 'To have a successful system, you must not only sell a lot of the system, but make money off it, too. You can sell all the systems you want, but if you don't turn a profit, you'll go down the drain as a company.' This is the second part of a three part series. The first article discusses the background to this round of console fighting."
I never saw a sega saturn in shops as kid, and I only seen one shop with dreamcast around here. Nintendo is nowhere like that currently... I see Gamecube in every shop I goto. And DS have swept the floor with PSP, in both in terms of sales and money earnt...
And I remember when people told me that PSP would kill DS... lovely trolls. Not that i'm against the PSP, I even have considered to buy it too as soon it drop in price.
There were some iffy points in there, but overall a fiarly well written piece. I look forward to the other sections. Regardless of market share, it's known that Nintendo doesn't lose money on hardware and has much loot in the bank. They aren't going anywhere...
It's about the quality of the games, not so much the quantity. They have been steady, and I have been a fanboy since '87 when I got my first NES. They produce great quality games, even though it may be Mario as the main character.
"I cannot think of any need in childhood as strong as the need for a father's protection." -- Sigmund Freud
This is good news for all gamers, not just Nintendo fans. Nintendo will force other gaming companies to keep on their toes and continue to innovate. Though Nintendo hasn't done very well compared to the PS2, they have a strong hold on the portable gaming market.
This is here so you don't ignore the last two lines of my posts.
As long as Nintendo can maintain this "awareness" that the general public has of them as being a major part of video games and entertainment in general, I can't see them fading away.
Hopefully this article will put to rest that myth that the PS2 was never sold at a loss.
"Derp de derp."
You also get an excellent idea of which device sells for $100 more than the other and still sells at a substantial loss.
Also, you seem to count processing power and innovation as the same thing. While I'm not sure which device will provide more fun in the long run (I have one of each), the DS is by far the more ambitious and innovative in its design.
Nintendo's claim for several years is that innovation is not technology alone.
And if you want a company that was "driving new technology" look at the Game Gear, 32X, Sega CD, Saturn, and Dreamcast. And hey, I'll throw in the Virtual Boy, too, so you can yell at Nintendo some more.
You are either a masterful troll or have odd ideas of "innovation."
Honor Among Slackers. A veri
Biased or not, this article is great. Just looking at that profit graph makes me smile.
:)
$$$ for Nintendo = Lots of Nintendo games to come =
"When the atomic bomb goes off there's devastation...but when the atomic bong goes off there's celebraaaaation!"
"And even though the announcement at E3 of the Game Boy Micro was greeted with a certain amount of skepticism and curious musing by the game press, from a business strategy standpoint, I expect that it will turn to pure gold.
Without making a significant investment in R&D or manufacturing, Nintendo repackages current technology and resells it at what, I would expect, is a healthy margin. Not only will the Micro put GBA technology in new hands, inevitably large numbers of the units will find their way into the shirt pockets and key chains of many current GBA owners. Not only will Nintendo make money on this new hardware product, it will stimulate additional demand for GBA software.
While Sony and Microsoft spent E3 showing off what billions of dollars of investment can do at their press events, Nintendo was demonstrating how minimal investment can generate cash.
That folks, is called smart business."
The whole article is worth a read.
If you sell a billion consoles, yet lose money on them, you're still in the hole financially.
Now if you sell 150,000 of them and make money on each, financially you're ahead of the game.
The article doesn't argue console sales numbers explicitly, it argues that Nintendo is making a god-awful lot of money, which is what they're in business to begin with.
If systems sold include money made for the company, then they should be included. One could argue that they should also include the amount of money Sony is throwing away with each PSP in order to attempt to 'purchase' their way into the handheld sector.
Of course I don't have those problems now, being that I own my own house and my mom doesn't live with me, but hey, when I go over to her place and she sees I'm tired... ;-)
The "Bull" statistics weren't numbers of systems sold. It was profit margins for the video game divisions of the three big competing video game companies. Sure the graph includes hand-held gaming, but Nintendo has never shown themselves to be weak competitors.
And that, quite frankly, is what matters the most. As long as Nintendo competes they will make new products that other companies will adopt and copy, and we as consumers can win by buying what we like. If you don't like Nintendo's products as much as Sony's, fine. But don't wish for their demise, it helps ensure that video games are made so people have fun.
Being the #1 seller is not the most important thing in bussiness , sure its nice but its never been the greatest of concerns . . .
The greatest concern is turning a profit , and nintendo i belive was the only company to profit last round on hardware sales
nintendo does not need a majorty in any form , it's making alot of money
It matters not if they have only small share of the market , they turn a tidy profit and have a solid user base.
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
If you pay attention to what Nintendo has been saying, and you look at their strategy, and you notice that they make big, bold moves, you'll notice that Nintendo tries to make moves to stay in the game. They've even said as much, in many interviews. All this talk of "Nintendo should do what Sega did" has been wishful fanboy flaming and speculation to begin with. It's hardly news, Nintendo knows what it is doing. They're a business, they aren't going to fold so easily, and they have the cash reserves to make moves that Sega couldn't afford.
Now, if Nintendo made two or three consoles that had lukewarm sales and they had to dive into their reserves, I would be deeply concerned. But, they still post profits, so as far as I'm concerned all comparisons to Sega are flamebait.
You're right. Nintendo is "losing" the console wars. Well, at least the ones you plug into your tv.
"The flaw: they include handheld gaming devices in the statistics which neither competitor was a player in during 2004."
So what? The article is talking about total dollar value of product sold. The comparison is by company (or gaming division in a company for Sony and MS), not product.
Yeah, you're missing the whole damn point of the article.
Nintendo does not live or die on the marketshare of the gamecube compared to the PS2 and Xbox. Just like the sales of Revolution consoles compared to the PS3 and Xbox360 won't entirely determine their future.
Did Nintendo lose market share over the current generation of consoles. Yes. Is that threatening their viability as a video game company? Not as much as you'd think.
A couple points that you should have gotten out of the article. First, even without the Gameboy and DS stuff, just the Gamecube, Nintendo would've been profitable. That's the number one thing you have to do to stay in business.
Second, selling a zillion of something isn't necessarily a good thing if you lose money on each one. The Xbox is sort of a special case here, because MS is taking a longer term view of things, and has a ginormous pile of money the subsidize their video game losses.
Third, Nintendo can't afford to operate that way, and so they don't. They're not playing the marketshare at all costs game. They realize that, while bragging about how you sold more consoles than the other guy is fun to say, it doesn't necessarily do squat to your bank account. Giving Nintendo a hard time for not playing that game is to miss the point of their business plan, similar to how you missed the point of this article.
One time I threw a brick at a duck.
A lot of people know that the GBA sells nearly as well as the PS2. PS2 fans tend to call that unfair, citing reasons such as the GBA costing way less and providing way less. The article also mentions that Nintendo doesn't have any room for losses, but their handheld franchise at this point is basically the equivelent of Microsoft's XP.
Of course, Nintendo isn't going to "pull a Sega." The first reason being that Sega has been going downhill ever since they pulled a Sega themselves. Sonic Heroes was out for three months before they put it on the Greatest Hits list, which really means that they made way more units than they could sell at 50 dollars. The division that pursued the X-Box has basically fell apart. Secondly, they've got a great collection of handhelds that should easily succeed in the future. Even if you were to term "pulling a Sega" as dropping out of the traditional console-into-TV system market, they're still making a good bit of money on it.
Nintendo is among the strongest of the three, game wise. The article turns this into a counter point, saying that they're more like a third party concerned about their own games rather than the hardware. But it means they've got the talent to produce and rely upon a set of guarenteed revenue streams. When the PS2 was released, the anticipated big hits were Gran Tourismo, Metal Gear and Final Fantasy. They all fared well but at this point, as a franchise they're all in decline. The big games
But they're more than just a game making company. They've proven they know how to make a viable and affordable system over and over. They wouldn't be around otherwise. Take a look at the next round of consoles. They all pretty much look like the Gamecube. Fast RAM, PowerPC chips, expandable modules. I had joked that maybe Nintendo should just rerelease the Cube in a different form and see how few people notice the difference. You can bitch about how much more awesome newer hardware can be (and Nintendo would agree with you), but it takes a hell of a lot of work to make character models and textures, and every step of visual improvement means more of that work. You can't just up the resolution, because the TVs 99 out of 100 people use for this stuff isn't supported. If MS is really serious about being the progenitor of the HD revolution, they'd better include the cables with the system. My guess is that they won't even provide S-Video. They'll talk a good game, but you won't be playing it.
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
Hrm, to turn an old slogan around...
Nintendon't what Sega does!
They're forgetting Microsoft has a bottomeless pit of money to use up. They can lose money until both are bankrupt.
They'd have to have like six failed consoles before they've pulled a "Sega". I say this as a proud Dreamcast owner, by the way.
Sega CD: Buggy, crashy, still only 64 colors, looked like crap compared to SNES. Sega USA helped kill it with tons of terrible Full Motion Video games that nobody liked. Sound CPU still sounded like a singing greeting card.
32X: Developed by Sega of America at the same time as the Saturn was being developed in Japan because sega of japan DIDN'T TELL SEGA USA THEY WERE MAKING A NEW CONSOLE. Never well supported, died with a handful of games.
Saturn: not a 3D system, Playstation came out, say goodbye to Saturn. Dual CPU, too hard to develop for due to lack of standard dev tools for SMP programming.
Dreamcast: Good, but too little too late. PS2 helped kill a year in advance by simply lying about how great the PS2 was going to be. Several game batches on release were bad and had to be recalled, sending sega into the hole even further.
I don't know about anyone else, but After the Sega CD, I didn't even consider Sega consoles because I knew they'd be failures. I realize this is a self-fulfilling prophecy, but they really weren't that good, at least until the Dreamcast. I still have my Dreamcast, and I still love it. I miss Sega, but only since the Dreamcast, and for the Genesis, which had some great games.
Nintendo has had some failures, but they were never flagship products, and it seems they cut their losses at the right time, because no one tends to remember the Nintendo failures.
Nintendo makes a billion dollars of profit compared to Sony's 400 million, and that's a 'bullshit statistic'?
"... but with the threat of the entrance of Sony into handheld, and perhaps cel-phone type gaming platforms, Nintendo is in serious trouble."
You mean like Nintendo was in trouble SNK, Nec, Tiger, Sega (twice), and a bunch of no-name companies entered the market?
This has been pointed out before, but I figure it's worth reminding you again: You're coming from an ignorant point of view.
a.) Nintendo doesn't make money from selling consoles. (Just like Sony and Microsoft don't.) They make it from games, just like Sony and Microsoft do. The big difference is that Nintendo is a FIRST PARTY game developer. In other words, when they release a million+ seller, they reap a shitload of money over it. BTW, they do this quite regularly.
b.) Nintendo didn't 'cheat' by having high portable sales. They're not 'afloat' with portable sales because it's an untapped market. They're making ridiculous profits over it because they're the only company who has demonstrated that they know what they're doing in this market. They've made lightning strike TWICE here. (Original Game Boy, and GBA.) Sega's tried twice and failed. SNK enjoyed a little success, but couldn't keep up. Atari, NEC, and Sega released really powerful portable systems, but that wasn't enough to give them any real market share.
In other words, there's no guarantees that Sony will disrupt Nintendo in the portable market. They may actually manage to get some market share out of it, but there's still the problem that Nintendo is a damn good game developer.
You can cry bullshit all you want, but you really should be mindful that you're narrowing your view way too much to make Nintendo look bad and Sony look good.
"Derp de derp."
The dreamcast really was a great system with some great games.. I wish Capcom's Powerstone had found its away to the other consoles.
What were the nintendo failure products?
Virtual boy is the easy one. umm.. what else?
The Game Boy and DS are NOT the same thing. Not at all. Ignoring the power of the system as a factor, the hardware differences (two screens, touch-sensitive, microphone, more buttons) could lead to some drastically different game play.
And a simple rebuttal to your last sentence. Nintendo IS selling systems and IS making money, and odds are good that that won't change anytime soon.
Goo goo g'joob.
companies like MS and PSP who are trying their darndest to not only compete for market share, but actually _innovate_ an drive new technologies.
I'd love to see you provide some examples of this so-called "innovation". For MS and Sony, their strategy seems to boil down to:
Hardware: bigger screens, faster processors/graphics, and new media types.
Software: Flashier graphics, PC ports, more "mature" games, and so on.
Logical steps to some people, maybe, but hardly innovative.
And i'll take Nintendo's first-party games over the horde of sports/fighter/racing/FPS sequels that can be found everywhere on the PS2 and XBox - Nintendo may still rely on core franchises, but at least they can still be counted on to show a spark of creativeness.
Now the PSP has pretty much eliminated that market as well.
Care to actually back that up with sales figures?
Nintendo is starting to turn into a cute,but annoying company to me,they don't seem to care about bringing anything new,only repackaging the same things in pointless ways (gameboy DS for instance).
So you're saying the DS - a dual-screen handheld with a touch screen, microphone, limited backwards compatibility, built-in wireless, and 3-D capability....Is just a Gameboy repackaged with nothing new?
Ummm...Right. Perhaps you should learn the concepts of making a rough draft and previewing before you write anything else.
As such,unless nintendo finally steps up to the plate,it unfortunatly looks like they're going to be knocked out of the ballgame. If they don't sell systems,they can't make ANY money,and there done for.
And yet they are selling systems - plenty of them, and at a very healthy profit. I suppose it would be too much to ask for you to actually read the article.
Wow, you really don't know what you're talking about. PSP eliminated Nintendo's handheld market? Can I have some of what you're smoking?
Sony sells more systems than Nintendo.
Nintendo turns more profit per system than Sony.
Given the profit numbers (Nintendo made double the profit of Sony) I'd say Nintendo is playing it pretty smart.
It is quite clear that Nintendo is doing a great job running a profitiable company. Nintendo is making money on all of its platforms in this generation of games.
It could be argued, however, especially with the difference in the installed user base, that only Nintendo is able to make a meaningful profit out of its Gamecube platform.
Its not enough for Nintendo to be profitiable and backing the Gamecube. They also need to make sure that Capcom, Namco, Sega, Electronic Arts, Konami, Activision, THQ, Midway, and Ubisoft (and all the others I have missed) are also making a healthy profit off of their console. And if the typical consumer is of the belief that only children play the game cube, then only children and Nintendo die hard fans will play that system.
If the financial backbone is Nintendo die hard fans, then only Nintendo will be able to satisfy them. And lets face it, Nintendo makes awesome games, and I dont think there are many other companies out there capable of putting out that calibur of game.
If they can make Revolution easy and cheap enough to develop for that publishers cannot help but make money developing for it, it will be supported.
END COMMUNICATION
Nintendo does make money on the hardware. Obviously, software licenses make more, but Nintendo has not been known to sell any system at a loss.
I can't speak for the Playstation 2, which seems to be almost identical to the PS1 innovation-wise, but the Xbox has:
1) A internal HD.
2) Xbox Live.
Neither of which is on your list.
Now I know that everybody on Slashdot hates Microsoft and loves Nintendo, and therefore anything positive I say about Microsoft will probably be flamed in replies, but in my opinion the Xbox is the most innovative console to come out since the original Playstation. The fact that it also happens to have the best video and audio performance (in this generation) is just icing on the cake.
Oh, also, Xbox is the first console to get adventure titles in... how long? Maybe not an "innovation," but certainly a selling point in its favor. I like adventure games.
Comment of the year
I dont see why nintendo and Sega dont join forces at this point!! with their combined intellectual properties they could make a killing!!!
before you criticise someone
It goes like this:
The console wars are like highschool. The fanboys and some idustry people spend all their time talking about who's got the most riced out car or who is the better looking. However, they are all failing to look at the result; Who's getting the most pussy? Sure X-Box might be the best looking, and maybe Sony's got the most riced out car. But little ol' Nintendo is where the real action is act.
For all of the effort X-Box is putting into the game, they've only gotten a little pussy in Q4 of last year. Before and after that they haven't even been able to get to third base. Sony does all right getting the pussy, but they're putting a lot of effort into it for what they're getting in return.
Meanwhile Nintendo is getting more pussy than they know what to do with, despite not having as nice a car or being as good looking.
And in the end, that's really the metric we should be looking, who is getting the most pussy? Answer Nintendo. And with a lot less effort than Sony or X-Box.
I think the best thing Microsoft could do would be to have a serious bundle at launch (say Halo 3 included with the system)
You mean a CD of Head Like a Hole by Nine Inch Nails, ready for import into Custom Soundtracks? That's the only Halo 3 that will be out by the holiday season that Microsoft is shooting for. Rumours on the Internets are that the second sequel to Halo: Combat Evolved won't be ready until around the PS3 launch.
I hope nintendo offers some good possibilities with online play. I'm sick of split-screens.
Not all same-screen multiplayer games are split-screen; a lot are shared-screen, where all players interact in a single third-person-omniscient view, such as Bomberman, Smash Bros., or several of the Mario Party minigames. Making games LAN- or online-only by ditching split-screen play would raise the price of a $300 console to $900 in a house with three players.
"So play with people who live elsewhere and have bought their own consoles!" Another problem is that a lot of parents can't afford the extra 360 USD per year for broadband (cable or DSL at $40/mo, if the cable company or telco happens to offer service to your address, vs. Netscape dial-up at $10/mo), and dial-up is too laggy for, say, the rumored Super Smash Bros. Online.
Slow Down Cowboy! Slashdot requires you to wait 2 minutes between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment. It's been 14 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
According to BillG, Halo 3 won't be ready for the Xbox 360 launch but will be present when Sony tries to debut the PS3. You can read about it here: http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/05/15/news_61245 92.html?part=rss&tag=gs_news&subj=6124592
Rumors place the PS3 launch around Spring 2006. I doubt Halo 3 would really be ready by then, since Halo 2 was just released a couple months ago. But I'm also guessing Sony won't be ready for a Spring 06 launch, especially considering their hardware isn't quite finalized yet, and I don't think developers have gotten dev kits yet. (Otherwise, we might have seen some actual PS3 games on the E3 floor instead of just the videos from their press conference)
My guess is the PS3 launch will be in Fall 06, and that should give Bungie enough time to finish Halo 3 for the Xbox 360. (Maybe they'll even give us an ending this time! *smirk*)
-- jchenx
1) A internal HD.
Well, I guess this depends on how wide a net you want to cast.
PC's have used internal HD's for gaming purposes for years. Devices that allow you to copy memory card saves back and forth from PC HD's have been around a long time. The N64 had a disk drive of sorts. The PS2 has a hard drive available, though it's optional.
Nintendo's new console will not technically have a hard drive, but I believe they have said it will contain 512 MB of internal flash memory.
I have a very hard time finding the idea of an internal hard drive (in any of the consoles) to be innovative - at best, it's just trying to mimic a PC.
2) Xbox Live.
Again, while very nice, this is nothing you haven't been able to do with a PC for years. Not to mention the fact that the SNES and Genesis had an online gaming network back in 1995.
I will grant that XBox Live has better-than-average oversight and matchmaking features, but beyond that I can't say it's hugely amazing.
Now I know that everybody on Slashdot hates Microsoft and loves Nintendo, and therefore anything positive I say about Microsoft will probably be flamed in replies,
I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm trying to control myself here, and I would hope you don't see any of this as a flame.
At any rate, I would probably buy an XBox if it had more games worth playing. All I ever hear people gushing praise about is Halo, GTA, and a few other games....And it's just not enough to justify buying another console. The fact that the RPG selection is abysmal doesn't help either.
I find many rabid XBox supporters to be more annoying than the average console fanboy as well - i.e I don't #^&*$#A^*&ing care how awesome you all think Halo is, I DON'T LIKE IT. PLEASE LEAVE THE REST OF US HEATHENS TO OUR INFERIOR GAMES. THANK YOU.
but in my opinion the Xbox is the most innovative console to come out since the original Playstation. The fact that it also happens to have the best video and audio performance (in this generation) is just icing on the cake.
You're entitled to your opinion, and i'm entitled to mine.
Oh, also, Xbox is the first console to get adventure titles in... how long? Maybe not an "innovation," but certainly a selling point in its favor. I like adventure games.
Whatever makes you happy. Personally, I don't have much interest in adventure games - I bought a PS2 to go with my Cube so I could pig out on RPGs and strategy games.
It shows that, yes, you can still stay around as long as you make money.
OTOH, that's going to change soon. Most companies release terrible, terrible crap games for the GBA because, since it's the only game in town, and the vast majority of GBA game purchasers are ill-informed parents, shit in a cartridge will sell.
The Nintendo DS is reflecting this port-itis: Madagasdar and SW: Ep 3 are both movie tie-in games (which are the biggest % of the GBA library), and both are unchanged from the GBA version with the exception of the 3D minigames which use the touch screen.
If Nokia hadn't pissed off the only demographic who'd have bought their N-Gage, they could've been a contender (if they could get some good games, which they don't currently have -- Pocket Kingdoms is not strong enough to ship units). The PSP could similarly take over, except that right now the PSP seems to be a really expensive way to play Lumines and WipeOut. For its price, it has too many flaws -- but if Sony cut its price and managed to fix the flaws (pixel death is the major factor), it'd sell. Hell, if the damn thing would really be a future walk-man (with easy movie playback capability, and music support [I'm thinking an mplayer port + xmms or similar), it'd sell great even at its current price point.
The thing is, Nintendo is making money now, and that makes me happy, but most of that is coming from licencing shitty-ass games, and the moment the market shifts away from their portable platform, it's going to be like the N64 all over again: the only way it'll make money is because the Hardcores will buy the Nintendo portable and a full library of first-party games. They're generally good, so that's no big deal, but I'm less likely to carry a Nintendo portable as a 2nd console as I am to own a GCN along side everything else in my (much less portable) console collection.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Hey now, don't forget about old MegaNet (even though despite pimping the modem in every flyer they put out, Sega never did bring it to the US.)
"In other words, when they release a million+ seller, they reap a shitload of money over it. BTW, they do this quite regularly."
MSRP on a 50$ game is like 2-5$ retailer, 15$ Sony/MS/Nintendo, 15$ other guy/gal, 5$ production cost, 10$ overhead (shipper, Nintendo to Wal-mart/EB, etc). For a company like Rockstar to make on GTA what Nintendo makes on Mario Tennis, they'd have to sell it for 20-25$ more than the usual MSRP to cover costs and markup. Are you going to pay 75$ USD for a game? No? Because it's like Nintendo does when you buy a first- (and possibly second-) party title. Sony kinda gets this with their second-party titles, but not to the same effect.
MS lovies Halo for a reason: Halo is the only reason they aren't further in the hole.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
whatever that means, hope it doesn't become some new meme..
The only way Nintendo could "Pull a Sega" is if they decided to run Windows CE on the Revolution, then have its copy protection smashed wide open say..three months after launch.
After which all the developers move to other console platforms and they decide to quit the hardware business and stick to producing software.
OSGGFG - Open Source Gamers Guide to Free Games
Nintendo is the only company of the major 3 console makers that is completely a video game company. They reported profits of over 800 million USD this year. Thats far from turning away from consoles, Not only are they making money, they are making a lot of it. Whereas Microsoft has recorded over 1.6 billion in loses from the Xbox. I believe Sony also reported some sort of lose on the PS2 hardware.(I can't confirm that so does anyone know), Nintendo makes a point, they may sell less consoles then the others, but they aren't losing money on it.
I won't buy a newer or better handheld than the GBA because it's just too cool, even though they overcharge for the inferior games.
I have a GBA SP, I don't plan on buying a PSP. Why? It's too expensive! With a game, it's $300! I bought my SP for $70. With a game, I spent $100. I can still use my old GBA games, such as Tetris.
I'm a grown-up, I just don't use a portable enough to justify spending more than $100. I use it when I travel for business, to kill time in lines or on planes or trains.
The strength of the Nintendo portables is that they are priced low enough to be an impulse buy. I'll drop $70 without really thinking about it, but $250 is another matter.
Yeah man, it's a shame that no one makes software for the Apple either, since their marketshare is only 3.5%... Guess that means Apple is going out of business soon...
You say that all of this is available on the PC, but I don't see it branching and connecting all titles the way Xbox Live does (nevermind the fact that the PC != a gaming console).
Two points here:
The HD isn't innovative because it allows the saving of games, but because it allows:
1) Video games to have some drive cache for textures/sounds/whatnot and not have to hit the optical drive constantly.
2) The download of mods and map plugins for existing games. (Look at what they did with Ninja Gaiden... three downloadable mods, you buy three games for the price of one.)
3) The ripping of CDs which you can later use for videogame soundtracks. Admittedly, not many games made use of this feature, but I enjoyed it in the games that did. (Rob Zombie makes a good videogame soundtrack, no matter what the game.)
And if you think Gamespy is anything like Xbox Live, that just shows that you haven't played Xbox Live in a long time if at all.
Comment of the year
Going to paste in a reply to another poster here:
Two points here:
The HD isn't innovative because it allows the saving of games, but because it allows:
1) Video games to have some drive cache for textures/sounds/whatnot and not have to hit the optical drive constantly.
2) The download of mods and map plugins for existing games. (Look at what they did with Ninja Gaiden... three downloadable mods, you buy three games for the price of one.)
3) The ripping of CDs which you can later use for videogame soundtracks. Admittedly, not many games made use of this feature, but I enjoyed it in the games that did. (Rob Zombie makes a good videogame soundtrack, no matter what the game.)
And if you think Gamespy is anything like Xbox Live, that just shows that you haven't played Xbox Live in a long time if at all.
---
And add a few things:
1) You can't use flash memory for swap, the *main* advantage of the Xbox's HD. Not unless you don't mind the console dying in 6 months.
2) "At any rate, I would probably buy an XBox if it had more games worth playing. All I ever hear people gushing praise about is Halo, GTA, and a few other games....And it's just not enough to justify buying another console. The fact that the RPG selection is abysmal doesn't help either."
Xbox has tons of good games. The problem is that they are the games that most people don't "gush" about... additionally, all the cross-platform games look, sound, and usually play better on Xbox than on GameCube or PS2.
The Xbox also has more PC-style RPGs than the PS2 and GameCube ever did... given, it doesn't have a lot of RPGs, but I'd MUCH rather play Morrowind over the boring pretentious anime-infected Japanese bullcrap consoles have been stuck with for the last decade. (But tastes vary, of course.)
For the record, I also don't like GTA because I find it too violent. Halo was a 'meh', but Halo 2 really is amazing in pretty much every way. Some of my favorite Xbox games are Prince of Persia: Sands of Time (I don't like the sequel), Defender, Syberia, Simpsons: Hit and Run, Ninja Gaiden (hard!), Panzer Dragoon Orta (the fun shooter with the strange-ass name), Otogi, Crimson Skies, Gunvalkyrie, Counter-Strike, Godzilla: Destroy All Monsters, Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance, Outrun, Demon Stone, Whiplash, Beyond Good and Evil... and I think my all-time favorite at the moment is Spyro: A Hero's Tail. I also like all the classic game collections: Intellivision Lives, Atari, Namco, Midway games volumes 1 & 2, Sonic Mega Collection.
If that's not enough "games worth playing" to you, then you must have a LOT more free time than I do.
3) "You're entitled to your opinion, and i'm entitled to mine."
Yeah, the difference is that I can justify my position, and you've obviously never even played Xbox Live.
4) "Whatever makes you happy. Personally, I don't have much interest in adventure games - I bought a PS2 to go with my Cube so I could pig out on RPGs and strategy games."
That's fine, that's your preference. But are you seriously saying that an entire genre of games existing on only *one* console *isn't* a selling point for that console? What if GameCube had the only console flight sims right now? Wouldn't you say the GameCube is a better buy if you're interested in flight sims?
The point here is that whether or not you like adventure games, a lot of people *do*, and for them the Xbox would be a good choice for a console.
Comment of the year
I think you are missing the point. Look at Sega, was its innovation successful? Repeated failures to innovate successfully don't help the innovator. Nintendo not only innovates, but they succeed with their innovations. Sure, they have the rare failure, but they recognize it quickly and pull the plug on it. That is how you innovate properly, and it is a far more successful business strategy than sticking to your "innovations" until your are bankrupt. Nintendo knows the time and place for innovations more often than not. -Drachasor
Well, I had an even lengthier reply written to all this, but Slashdot decided to throw a server error and eat my comment when I previewed, so i'll try to make it brief.
The HD isn't innovative because it allows the saving of games, but because it allows:
If you find it innovative to try and give the console features that have been around on PCs for years, then so be it. I don't. Repeating the same stuff over and over won't change my mind, and I doubt i'll change yours.
Xbox has tons of good games. The problem is that they are the games that most people don't "gush" about... additionally, all the cross-platform games look, sound, and usually play better on Xbox than on GameCube or PS2.
If that's not enough "games worth playing" to you, then you must have a LOT more free time than I do.
Nope, I just have access to almost of those games on platforms I already own, and see no reason to buy another console just to play a small number of exclusives and multi-console games that may or may not be marginally superior.
The Xbox also has more PC-style RPGs than the PS2 and GameCube ever did... given, it doesn't have a lot of RPGs, but I'd MUCH rather play Morrowind over the boring pretentious anime-infected Japanese bullcrap consoles have been stuck with for the last decade. (But tastes vary, of course.)
As you say, tastes vary. Nothing more really needs to be said.
That's fine, that's your preference. But are you seriously saying that an entire genre of games existing on only *one* console *isn't* a selling point for that console? What if GameCube had the only console flight sims right now? Wouldn't you say the GameCube is a better buy if you're interested in flight sims?
As I said in my original post, I purchased a PS2 because I believe it was the better buy to have access to RPGs and strategy games.
Maybe i'm wrong, but I seem to be implying that having a large amount of games in those specific genres was a selling point.
The point here is that whether or not you like adventure games, a lot of people *do*, and for them the Xbox would be a good choice for a console.
Your point?
You think the XBox is good for adventure games - fine.
I don't like them much, but if it's a good enough reason for you to buy an XBox, then great. I'm happy for you. I'm not sure where you think i'm disagreeing on this.
I don't believe Nintendo is going anywhere in the hardware market, they're comfortable in their niche. They sell hardware that is accessible by families with lower price points and high quality. At $99 the gamecube has pulled off graphics better than the PS2 on many games. Even at low price points, they make PROFIT, which is more than MS can say. Sure, they don't turn out expensive do-it-all machines, and they don't churn out as many games as the other consoles. When they do churn something out, its a fun, well made product at a good price. They're in it for win-win situations, they profit, and the customer's get good products at a good price point. They still pride themselves on innovation, which I believe will be the key to the next generation as people will get sick of weak sequels and pretty games that are so-so for $300-$400 consoles. People will always buy Nintendo's inexpensive hardware to access family oriented games that are just plain fun, even if they don't have the biggest gross numbers, they still have the best fanbase and profits.
"Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms,
That was actually mostly my point. The original post was positing the fact that the PSP went with faster and more expensive parts as innovation sure to overshadow all of Nintendo's portable offerings. I was claiming that just pushing new technology doesn't keep a company afloat and that speed obtained from increased production costs--and reduced battery life--is not innovation. Nintendo consistenly impresses me with their products. I just bought Pac Pix today for my DS, and while it feels a bit like an extended tech demo, it's a game style that I would never experience on another game platform. That Nintendo is able to put these things out and still make strong profits impresses me. I don't think they are in any risk of pulling a Sega.
Honor Among Slackers. A veri
"The HD isn't innovative because it allows the saving of games, but because it allows:
1) Video games to have some drive cache for textures/sounds/whatnot and not have to hit the optical drive constantly.
2) The download of mods and map plugins for existing games. (Look at what they did with Ninja Gaiden... three downloadable mods, you buy three games for the price of one.)
3) The ripping of CDs which you can later use for videogame soundtracks. Admittedly, not many games made use of this feature, but I enjoyed it in the games that did. (Rob Zombie makes a good videogame soundtrack, no matter what the game.)"
PC gamers have been able to do all this since the CD-ROM was introduced.
Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.