Maybe because they are games, and not books/movies? the crucial part is the gameplay, not the story. Yes, I know that a good story makes a better game, but that is not the point of gaming.
How would a story make a better game out of Burnout? or Counter Strike?
I'd like to argue with you, but you used up all my arguments!
You want games for the PC, but you don't want to pay full price! EVEN if there are some people will buy a steering wheel for more than US$1000, for playing those very games.
AND
You recognize that there are few people who buy racing games for the PC
AND
You recognize, that it is easier for you to rent a console and the game.
AND
You accept that a lot of gamers, even if they have a PC, have a console for their gaming.
Yes, I take your point that a lot of games that are ports should just cost 20 or 30 dollars, BUT, you are talking about selling games to people who spent $200 in their new video card, and that buy said cards every year, or 2 years. So you cannot blame the companies if they try to squeeze out more money out of them than the people who buyed a $200 Playstation 2, and will kept it for three or more years.
In short, you are screwed, and it is your fault (well, your pc gamers fellows in general). Keep playing World of Warcraft, because that game isn't going to consoles any time soon.
Besides the fact that you've got no numbers at all, you're comparing an entire company's SALES profits, over a line of several video game systems (including a portable market which it has dominated for well over a decade now), with a video game division (which includes quite a lot of R&D COSTS!) of a larger corporation that strategically pumps money into said division because it can mitigate the costs from other sources (evil monopoly, etc).
Yeah, because Nintendo doesn't have R&D costs.
Strategic pumping of money my ass. Microsoft itself believes the Xbox 360 will lose money on the first year, and probably the second year. With luck, they will recover some of the money at the end of this generation, supposing they end up first in the console war.
Nintendo, on the other hand, has only had one or two unprofitable trimesters this gen. And, when the Gamecube was not profitable, they simply shut down its production for a while. Since they are still making Gamecubes, I suppose they are making money on the thing.
Nintendo may have end up third this gen, but they made a lot of money in the process. That is all that matters at the end.
Well. I guess the problem is that PC gamers simply do not buy this kind of games. Most Racing games for the PC are about simulation. Sega's port of Daytona USA, did not sell well. EA's NFS Underground did not sell as well as on the consoles.
Whenever there is a port of a console game to the PC, I have read a lot of complains about how these games have not the complexity PC gamers are used to. They want level editors, mods, a lot of replayability, etc. So publishers have learned to not port arcade-ish games over there.
The studios have a monopoly on each movie. So, to maximize profits, they have to charge every person the maximum amount of money that they can pay.
So the guy who only wants to pay for a ticket on the local theater, just pays them 5 dollars (remember, the studio DOES NOT make money on popcorn sold at the theater). The guy that wants to cough up $15, $20 or $30 dollars on a DVD, does so, and the guy who wants to download the movie, pays whatever they charge it.
Yes, they may lose on the people that goes to the theater AND buys the dvd. But they do not lose the people that doesn't buy the dvd after they friends tell them they saw the movie, and that it sucked.
However, if Sony and this "xbox division" instantly swapped places in the market, they would remain unprofitable for at least three or four years more. When you go public, you want fast returns, not waiting years to start getting returns.
No, the Xbox division cannot become autonomous, at least until it doesn't lose as much money as it does today. Maybe in a couple of years, but not during the launch of the Xbox 360. They would have a great IPO, only to go broke the next year.
-MS Systems. They would make Windows, Vista, CE, whatever. They will make TeH M0ney!!! -MS Software. They would sell Office, Power point, etc. They will make even more Money!!! -Xbox division. They would sell the xbox and Halo 2. They will LOSE money, a billion dollar for the next two years, that is what MS is planning right now. They will go broke in no time.
Mmmm. That is not going to happen. Why separate the part of the company that make money from the ones that lose it? Only to become more profitable in the short run. They would end up even more stagnant, or broke.
R&D does cost, but the cost of it cannot influence the price you set for your product, because R&D is a sunken cost. They already spent the money, they want to recover it, but what they have to do now is to optimize the production line, and that means they have to optimize how much it costs to produce ONE iPod.
The article also mentions US$8 as the assembly cost.
The elevator in "Red Mars" was not microscopical, like the ones proposed now. It was a big chunk of a diamond like substance, several meters wide, flying into space.
The model proposed nowadays, is a very small ribbon. If it is attacked by this hypothetical "nuclear terrorist car bomb", well, people that are using it will die, maybe. But the elevator won't damage anyone.
Now this makes perfect sense... If you're a refugee forced to live in a room with 10,000 other people do you really want reporters taking pictures and invading what little privacy you have?
Yes, so the world can know about the conditions you are living in, and can press the authorities about it.
You are just full of it. The argument can also be used with Madden. You just play NFL Madden, because you are too lazy to be a real NFL player.
However, I also know that a large percentage of Nintendog users do so because they simply can't be bothered with the hassle of an actual pet, and I find that very sad.
How do you know this? Did you made a study? can I see your data, please? Do you work at Nintendo Marketing?
My theory: Nintendo developed a great game (as they almost always do), and marketed rightly (which sometimes they botch). Therefore, it is selling. Period.
Slashdot Mirror
Nintendo even said that Revolution games wouldn't work with the gamecube controller, only the older games would.
Maybe because they are games, and not books/movies? the crucial part is the gameplay, not the story. Yes, I know that a good story makes a better game, but that is not the point of gaming.
How would a story make a better game out of Burnout? or Counter Strike?
I'd like to argue with you, but you used up all my arguments!
You want games for the PC, but you don't want to pay full price! EVEN if there are some people will buy a steering wheel for more than US$1000, for playing those very games.
AND
You recognize that there are few people who buy racing games for the PC
AND
You recognize, that it is easier for you to rent a console and the game.
AND
You accept that a lot of gamers, even if they have a PC, have a console for their gaming.
Yes, I take your point that a lot of games that are ports should just cost 20 or 30 dollars, BUT, you are talking about selling games to people who spent $200 in their new video card, and that buy said cards every year, or 2 years. So you cannot blame the companies if they try to squeeze out more money out of them than the people who buyed a $200 Playstation 2, and will kept it for three or more years.
In short, you are screwed, and it is your fault (well, your pc gamers fellows in general). Keep playing World of Warcraft, because that game isn't going to consoles any time soon.
Besides the fact that you've got no numbers at all, you're comparing an entire company's SALES profits, over a line of several video game systems (including a portable market which it has dominated for well over a decade now), with a video game division (which includes quite a lot of R&D COSTS!) of a larger corporation that strategically pumps money into said division because it can mitigate the costs from other sources (evil monopoly, etc).
Yeah, because Nintendo doesn't have R&D costs.
Strategic pumping of money my ass. Microsoft itself believes the Xbox 360 will lose money on the first year, and probably the second year. With luck, they will recover some of the money at the end of this generation, supposing they end up first in the console war.
Nintendo, on the other hand, has only had one or two unprofitable trimesters this gen. And, when the Gamecube was not profitable, they simply shut down its production for a while. Since they are still making Gamecubes, I suppose they are making money on the thing.
Nintendo may have end up third this gen, but they made a lot of money in the process. That is all that matters at the end.
I'm sorry to be a troll, but, why do you need a fax these days?
Well. I guess the problem is that PC gamers simply do not buy this kind of games. Most Racing games for the PC are about simulation. Sega's port of Daytona USA, did not sell well. EA's NFS Underground did not sell as well as on the consoles.
Whenever there is a port of a console game to the PC, I have read a lot of complains about how these games have not the complexity PC gamers are used to. They want level editors, mods, a lot of replayability, etc. So publishers have learned to not port arcade-ish games over there.
That maybe why EA is the biggest publisher (followed only by Nintendo) and Acclaim went broke.
Funny. But add a suggestion that says something on the line of "-try a different nation"...
The studios have a monopoly on each movie. So, to maximize profits, they have to charge every person the maximum amount of money that they can pay.
So the guy who only wants to pay for a ticket on the local theater, just pays them 5 dollars (remember, the studio DOES NOT make money on popcorn sold at the theater). The guy that wants to cough up $15, $20 or $30 dollars on a DVD, does so, and the guy who wants to download the movie, pays whatever they charge it.
Yes, they may lose on the people that goes to the theater AND buys the dvd. But they do not lose the people that doesn't buy the dvd after they friends tell them they saw the movie, and that it sucked.
Well, historians will move ahead, and they will plenty of search in order to reconstruct story:
-newsgroup
-email (USA courts decided that email can be inherited)
-slashdot archives! yayster!
Well, of course there are exceptions. I don't know about Alcoa.
But Microsoft has been a bad monopoly, for the industry and the consumer.
OT, but your sig kicks ass.
Easy. Monopolies are bad. People hate them. Period.
Yes, I read that part.
However, if Sony and this "xbox division" instantly swapped places in the market, they would remain unprofitable for at least three or four years more. When you go public, you want fast returns, not waiting years to start getting returns.
No, the Xbox division cannot become autonomous, at least until it doesn't lose as much money as it does today. Maybe in a couple of years, but not during the launch of the Xbox 360. They would have a great IPO, only to go broke the next year.
Yeah, Dvorak expects MS to split into:
-MS Systems. They would make Windows, Vista, CE, whatever. They will make TeH M0ney!!!
-MS Software. They would sell Office, Power point, etc. They will make even more Money!!!
-Xbox division. They would sell the xbox and Halo 2. They will LOSE money, a billion dollar for the next two years, that is what MS is planning right now. They will go broke in no time.
Mmmm. That is not going to happen. Why separate the part of the company that make money from the ones that lose it? Only to become more profitable in the short run. They would end up even more stagnant, or broke.
R&D does cost, but the cost of it cannot influence the price you set for your product, because R&D is a sunken cost. They already spent the money, they want to recover it, but what they have to do now is to optimize the production line, and that means they have to optimize how much it costs to produce ONE iPod.
The article also mentions US$8 as the assembly cost.
The guy also forgets that Internet Explorer is not open sourced, yet is the biggest rival in the browser market.
The elevator in "Red Mars" was not microscopical, like the ones proposed now. It was a big chunk of a diamond like substance, several meters wide, flying into space.
The model proposed nowadays, is a very small ribbon. If it is attacked by this hypothetical "nuclear terrorist car bomb", well, people that are using it will die, maybe. But the elevator won't damage anyone.
Final Fantasy VI, which was a great game. Instead, they wrote FF IV, which is boring.
It is just an "I" misplaced, no big deal.
Thanks for the info. I was confused by the article that I didn't read :D
The title says it all...
Now this makes perfect sense... If you're a refugee forced to live in a room with 10,000 other people do you really want reporters taking pictures and invading what little privacy you have?
Yes, so the world can know about the conditions you are living in, and can press the authorities about it.
Yoshi's Cookie was a bad game.
Now, Tetris Attack (Puzzle de Pon) could see a release around here, adn I wouldn't complain.
Good old GPL 2.0 maybe?
You are just full of it. The argument can also be used with Madden. You just play NFL Madden, because you are too lazy to be a real NFL player.
However, I also know that a large percentage of Nintendog users do so because they simply can't be bothered with the hassle of an actual pet, and I find that very sad.
How do you know this? Did you made a study? can I see your data, please? Do you work at Nintendo Marketing?
My theory: Nintendo developed a great game (as they almost always do), and marketed rightly (which sometimes they botch). Therefore, it is selling. Period.