Based on your user name, I would venture that we're seeing product placement in Slashdot user names now [as well as product placement in your subsequent post, but many have done that before you].
The original post, to which you replied in a rude and condescending manner, was considering the possibility that Nintendo began making games for the PS3 and left the hardware business entirely. Your reply stated that Nintendo has said that are committed to the hardware business - as if that was a relevant point; since obviously anyone with a shred of intelligence knows that that has to be the company line to sustain current profits.
Now, in the future don't be so rude. The person you replied to is a frequent poster on games.slashdot.org and is sure to have heard the same quotes you have.
As for the possibility of Nintendo games showing up on a PS3, to which you dismiss the possibility. I'll grant you the assumption that their games division has too much overhead and so that switching to software only is feasible in its current state. Don't you think a company like Nintendo could modify their approach and become a much larger publishing house? Don't you think if they decided that they wanted out of the hardware business, they could reallocate resources and shift people around, perhaps temporarily shut down NOA and focus on the Japanese market where they can sell anything? You are trying to completely dismiss the possibility again based on Nintendo's word and Nintendo's current state. We're talking about the future where it's not only a possibility, it is a feasible option. Again, we all know that Nintendo management is committed to the hardware market and I don't think any of this will come to pass, but the possibility remains. Furthermore, if they needed start-up capital to expand their software division, Nintendo owns many, many licenses and can outsource games development along with the profit they generate from plush toys and such.
" What do you guys want to see in a new GTA game?"
More freedom in crimes that I can commit. For instance, I would like to be able to enter domestic residences and perform a home invasion. Couple this with the ability to take hostages, loading stolen goods into vans, and selling stolen goods to pawn shops and I'll be a happy home invader.
When the Saturn came out and stumbled, any interview with anyone from Sega stated that the company was committed to remaining in the hardware game. Do you actually believe that it is in Nintendo's best interests to even hint at the possibility of them leaving the hardware business? What this would do is undermine their hardware sales because you create doubt in the minds of gamers about whether the Nintendo console is going to be supported. Yes, Nintendo has repeatedly said that they're going to stick to hardware until they go out of business. No, this is not a guarantee and if you believe that no market forces could come along and lead Nintendo to being a software only company, you're silly.
Here's a hint - companies say the right things for the time they say them. Companies sometimes change their 'minds.'
Oh yeah? People are going to be dissuaded by this? Wouldn't this just drive people to get junk e-mail addresses and use them for any communique with the government and companies, as they should have been doing already?
I certainly use my hotmail address for nothing but garbage.
I think MS is in a different position than Nintendo. Nintendo has an established position within the market and are well known for making video games. If you say to someone that you're going to be playing some Nintendo all afternoon, they know what you're talking about. The same is not true of Microsoft. They need to build off of their brand name recognition within the video game industry so I believe they would be helped more than hurt by continuing the XBox name.
You see, even though Gamecube and XBox sales numbers worldwide are similar, MS has more to gain from using the XBox name than it loses because the XBox did not sell as well as desired. I like the N5 naming scheme that has been thrown around, just to note.
But anyway, long story short - the two companies are in different positions. And finally, would a rose by any other name smell less sweet?
The problem in finding that evidence is that who can gather it? Are you going to trust the retail outlets for accurate numbers or the manufacturers? I doubt they'll even give you numbers. And if you set up some sort of website where anyone who purchased a defective disc would enter it, you're going to either hit low as many people who have gotten defective discs don't know about the site or you're going to get floods of defective notices from competiting companies that want to make the competition look bad.
It's very hard evidence to gather. Anyone have any ideas?
[And I did notice that the rather obvious statement of returning the product was tacked on by the editor, unnessecarily.]
Well, any "exchange" includes a "return" but not every "return" includes an "exchange", if we are defining an exchange to be the reception of the same DVD or CD. When I exchange a product, I return the defective product to the store and receive a new copy of the product.
And if all they want to give me is store credit after two defective copies, I will immediately be placing calls to the Better Business Bureau and never shop there again. I can usually create enough of a stink before leaving the store that I get my money back. Sure, they'll initially try to stick you with store credit but if you push, you can get your money back. Ask them what the store would do if they got a shipment of the wrong product and sent it back to the manufacturer who then told them, "Oh, we'll cover you on the next round." It doesn't fly with the store and their suppliers and it sure as hell won't fly with me.
The only time I would try to get my money back would be, again, when I've found that a same title for same title exchange results in another defective copy. Of course, all this talk of getting my money back hinges on me not being able to find any other product in the store that I want - sometimes a reality, but oftentimes not.
Call me a reclusive weirdo but the only people I want to play video games online with are friends of mine I know in real life. I mainly just play sports games online [with my PS2] but if I'm in a game of Madden and someone wants to play ESPN Basketball, they can call my cell phone. That is why I don't see XBox Live as being the great killer app that a lot of people do. Obviously everyone has different expectations for online play so my needs differ from others. There's my two cents.
Never officially called the PSX? Incorrect. In all the literature Sony sent out to dev teams before the actual launched of the Playstation, it was abbreviated as the PSX.
You're generally treating the people who developed the games you enjoyed playing with as much contempt as possible, tough guy.
Basing consumer electronics purchasing decisions on personal experience is a bad idea. [This is in no way defending Sony or trying to get you to purchase Sony products - just trying to make a point.]
Let's make the numbers simple to illustrate this. We'll have Company A and Company B, which both manufacture the same product you want. Company A has a defect rate of 1 in 100,000. Company B has a defect rate of 1 in 5. Now, in the past you've bought from Company A and been part of the group that gets stuck with a defective product. Wouldn't you still want to go with Company A?
Always play the averages and never assume that your one experience is the norm. That's also good to keep in mind when reading reviews online, which may or may not be placed there by the company itself or the competition. Just a little helpful advice.
"most have said that they prefer other systems because of these games will not be available."
This sentence does not parse correctly. What are you trying to say?
"I am just saying that it seems like Gamecube is not doing well in sales because their games are targeted for kids (they do not hold many M-rated games)."
First of all, the Gamecube is selling well enough to keep Nintendo in the black. Granted, the Gamecube is not number one worldwide but if you look at worldwide numbers, which I am assuming you haven't, you would know that the Gamecube and the XBox are pretty much event in sales. Of course, that blows your whole theory that M-rated games sell systems since the XBox has plenty of those. Third, why does a game have to be rated M in order to get targeted to adults? If a movie comes out and is rated PG, do you not see it on the grounds that it is for children? Do you need to have the word 'fuck' in a movie in order for your adult sense of entertainment to be satisfied? It's a rather shallow person who only buys M-rated games.
In actuality, I believe that Nintendo's lineup of games, coupled with better third party support, can keep a console quite well afloat. The Gamecube and XBox have not done as well as both Nintendo and MS would have liked because of the strong success of the PS2 and a lack of quality third party games. Both Nintendo and MS have released or bought companies and released excellent first party software that have given their respective consoles some great hits. But you obviously didn't read that article you linked to that closely. Do you think the average gamer over the age of 50 can find more games to play on the Gamecube, XBox, or PS2? I would guess that the less violent, more kid-targeted games [as you would call them] would appear to someone over 50. I think an older person would be more inclined to enjoy something like Pikmin than GTA or Halo. In conclusion, your analysis is trite and without depth. M-rated games are not the only games for adults. Did you know that there are E-rated games? Do you know what the E stands for? EVERYONE. That includes adults.
"If Sony or MS or Nintendo did a public poll before the launch of a new console and gave people the following options: a $300 console with backwards compatibility, or a $250 console without, what do you think would be the outcome?"
I believe that over half of those polled regarding Sony and Nintendo would want backwards compatibility. I also believe that less than half would care about backwards compatibility for their next Microsoft product.
Consumers are very interesting creatures. You or I, as rational human beings, may see $99.99 and know that that price is, for all intents and purposes, $100 but marketing studies, time and time again, have found that $99.99 sells better than $100. Now what am I getting at? The backwards compatibility, even if it is never used by the consumer, is a nice feature. When the consumer is mulling over a decision to buy in their head, backwards compatibility may play a role, even if they own no first or second generation games. They may think, "Well hey, I could always pick up some old games on the cheap." I think that the DVD Playback feature for the PS2 also helped to move units. Even if a consumer owns a DVD player, that feature is just one more selling point.
Perhaps backwards compatibility is not an issue for you but you should realize that in the general populace, it does have an actual effect on sales, just as the 99.99 vs. 100 thing does, as I mentioned earlier. When trying to understand the decisions of a company, one's personal bias is not the way to examine the right and wrong decisions. Your analysis is a lot like saying, "Well, I only like racing games. Sony should just sell racing games because that is all that anyone wants." You need to look at percentages and trends, not personal opinion.
"but realistically, how many owners of PS2s are still buying PS1 games? A few, but not many. Once they see games on the PS2, they don't want blocky PS1 games..."
I still play my PS1 games on my PS2 quite often.
And as evidenced by sales of Gameboy Advance games, people still enjoy SNES games and enjoy playing them. Having them as an option is not a bad idea.
I would wager a guess that you have no idea how the PS2 does emulation of the PS1. Until you do a study and have hard numbers to back up how many people use the backwards compatibility of the PS2, your statements are just unbacked ranting.
There was no need for you to reiterate what was being said in the article since I wasn't commenting on the article but rather the often used line that there is an anti-Nintendo slant in the media. Since one article, slanted as it may be [although this article appears not to be], does not prove or disprove this point, reading the article has nothing to do with my point. I'm sorry if you cannot understand this and more sorry that you've been reduced to being crude. Have a good night.
I didn't read it in the first place. One article does not a conspiracy make. I read video game sites and magazines consistently and have not seen this anti-Nintendo bias.
And wouldn't Nintendo need to do something spectacular to come out on top? Sony has the name recognition now. Back in the day, playing Nintendo was the same as playing video games. Now that phrase has been replaced by the Playstation. In order for Nintendo to come out on top, they need to do something spectacular - that's not anti-Nintendo, that's just the truth. Isn't it? Please, tell me if you think that it is not true. Tell me that you think Nintendo has so much momentum that they can release a mediocre system and come out on top.
"which is sub standard (no DVD play back, no Hard drive and very little space in discs) and has 1 good title each 6 months I prefer not to play it. period."
Sub-standard? Let's examine this for a moment. Sub means below. Standard is the generally held bar that everyone jumps over. DVD playback? Well, let's include the Dreamcast since that was originally part of this generation of consoles. The Gamecube, Dreamcast, and XBox do not have DVD playback. [Yeah, that's right. XBox can't play DVDs out of the box - therefore it can't play them in this reasoning.] So 1 out of 4. Sounds like DVD Playback isn't that standard a feature. Hard drive? Again, XBox is the only one that satisfies this so we still have 1 out of 4. And the very little space? I don't know what size XBox games are so I can't comment on that BUT I know that quite a few PS2 games come on CD rather than DVD - meaning 700 mb, less than a Gamecube disc. Dreamcast games also will fit on CD, again less than 700 mb. So long story short, I don't think it's quite fair to call the Gamecube a sub standard console.
As for the 1 title every 6 months - I waited for the price drop/Zelda bundle and there are more than enough good games to keep me occupied, especially since I also own a PS2.
I have not noticed the media small talking the Gamecube, as you put it. Many people keep saying this but I read quite a few gaming sites and have a subscription to a gaming magazine [no need to give a plug to them here] and have found most coverage fairly balanced. Gaming sites and magazines review the games. They don't normally have fanboy discussions of which console is best so I don't know where all you people are finding this great media hatred for the Gamecube - please link to an example or two or ten, in order to assure me that there is a conspiracy.
Not really - I'll exagerate this example because sometimes you have a hard time following things. I can compare an Atari 2600 to whatever modern computer you want and the graphics on the computer will be superior - even though that computer wasn't built with gaming in mind [we'll say it was assembled to be a web server.] You see the trouble with your rationale?
I'm not saying that the original poster was correct in his statement. In fact, it sounds quite foolish to think that a video game console was designed with something other than gaming in mind. [And of course, the poster offers no evidence.] But your counter to that statement is weak, at best.
anti Howard Dean press? Everytime I turn on the TV, what I hear about Howard Dean is that he's got the Democratic nomination locked up. If the press was actually against Dean and there was some great conspiracy, why aren't any of the other Democrats getting nearly the coverage? Whenever there's mention of Dean not being able to beat Bush in a general election, the press is usually quoting a leaked quip from Karl Rove. Read the news however you want but there's no need to bring your incorrect and childish views into the games section. Try to stick to discussing games you jackass.
Again, I can find plenty of pro-Nintendo writing. Zelda and Metroid have been the critics darlings. I think that Nintendo gets bad press over the lack of third party software and the lack of a real online prescence. Don't be so paranoid until you've compiled statistics and found that Nintendo is taking undue criticism. I see many game writers badmouthing all three of the consoles. Let's see a link to see of the unfair reporting you've seen. Perhaps the numerous posts on games.slashdot.org regarding how the price cut led to greater sales? Oh wait, that wouldn't fit your argument. So come, back up your nonsense.
Slashdot Mirror
And this is the first post, so no redundant mods or I will be upset.
Based on your user name, I would venture that we're seeing product placement in Slashdot user names now [as well as product placement in your subsequent post, but many have done that before you].
Wait a second, does the XBox come with antivirus software? What about the Microsoft mouse I own? How about MS t-shirts?
Now, in the future don't be so rude. The person you replied to is a frequent poster on games.slashdot.org and is sure to have heard the same quotes you have.
As for the possibility of Nintendo games showing up on a PS3, to which you dismiss the possibility. I'll grant you the assumption that their games division has too much overhead and so that switching to software only is feasible in its current state. Don't you think a company like Nintendo could modify their approach and become a much larger publishing house? Don't you think if they decided that they wanted out of the hardware business, they could reallocate resources and shift people around, perhaps temporarily shut down NOA and focus on the Japanese market where they can sell anything? You are trying to completely dismiss the possibility again based on Nintendo's word and Nintendo's current state. We're talking about the future where it's not only a possibility, it is a feasible option. Again, we all know that Nintendo management is committed to the hardware market and I don't think any of this will come to pass, but the possibility remains. Furthermore, if they needed start-up capital to expand their software division, Nintendo owns many, many licenses and can outsource games development along with the profit they generate from plush toys and such.
When the Saturn came out and stumbled, any interview with anyone from Sega stated that the company was committed to remaining in the hardware game. Do you actually believe that it is in Nintendo's best interests to even hint at the possibility of them leaving the hardware business? What this would do is undermine their hardware sales because you create doubt in the minds of gamers about whether the Nintendo console is going to be supported. Yes, Nintendo has repeatedly said that they're going to stick to hardware until they go out of business. No, this is not a guarantee and if you believe that no market forces could come along and lead Nintendo to being a software only company, you're silly.
Here's a hint - companies say the right things for the time they say them. Companies sometimes change their 'minds.'
Don't be so naive.
I certainly use my hotmail address for nothing but garbage.
You see, even though Gamecube and XBox sales numbers worldwide are similar, MS has more to gain from using the XBox name than it loses because the XBox did not sell as well as desired. I like the N5 naming scheme that has been thrown around, just to note.
But anyway, long story short - the two companies are in different positions. And finally, would a rose by any other name smell less sweet?
How can you feel bad for an inanimate object?
It's very hard evidence to gather. Anyone have any ideas?
[And I did notice that the rather obvious statement of returning the product was tacked on by the editor, unnessecarily.]
And if all they want to give me is store credit after two defective copies, I will immediately be placing calls to the Better Business Bureau and never shop there again. I can usually create enough of a stink before leaving the store that I get my money back. Sure, they'll initially try to stick you with store credit but if you push, you can get your money back. Ask them what the store would do if they got a shipment of the wrong product and sent it back to the manufacturer who then told them, "Oh, we'll cover you on the next round." It doesn't fly with the store and their suppliers and it sure as hell won't fly with me.
The only time I would try to get my money back would be, again, when I've found that a same title for same title exchange results in another defective copy. Of course, all this talk of getting my money back hinges on me not being able to find any other product in the store that I want - sometimes a reality, but oftentimes not.
Call me a reclusive weirdo but the only people I want to play video games online with are friends of mine I know in real life. I mainly just play sports games online [with my PS2] but if I'm in a game of Madden and someone wants to play ESPN Basketball, they can call my cell phone. That is why I don't see XBox Live as being the great killer app that a lot of people do. Obviously everyone has different expectations for online play so my needs differ from others. There's my two cents.
If that copy also does not work on my player, store policy or not, I'll get my money back.
You're generally treating the people who developed the games you enjoyed playing with as much contempt as possible, tough guy.
Let's make the numbers simple to illustrate this. We'll have Company A and Company B, which both manufacture the same product you want. Company A has a defect rate of 1 in 100,000. Company B has a defect rate of 1 in 5. Now, in the past you've bought from Company A and been part of the group that gets stuck with a defective product. Wouldn't you still want to go with Company A?
Always play the averages and never assume that your one experience is the norm. That's also good to keep in mind when reading reviews online, which may or may not be placed there by the company itself or the competition. Just a little helpful advice.
This sentence does not parse correctly. What are you trying to say?
"I am just saying that it seems like Gamecube is not doing well in sales because their games are targeted for kids (they do not hold many M-rated games)."
First of all, the Gamecube is selling well enough to keep Nintendo in the black. Granted, the Gamecube is not number one worldwide but if you look at worldwide numbers, which I am assuming you haven't, you would know that the Gamecube and the XBox are pretty much event in sales. Of course, that blows your whole theory that M-rated games sell systems since the XBox has plenty of those. Third, why does a game have to be rated M in order to get targeted to adults? If a movie comes out and is rated PG, do you not see it on the grounds that it is for children? Do you need to have the word 'fuck' in a movie in order for your adult sense of entertainment to be satisfied? It's a rather shallow person who only buys M-rated games.
In actuality, I believe that Nintendo's lineup of games, coupled with better third party support, can keep a console quite well afloat. The Gamecube and XBox have not done as well as both Nintendo and MS would have liked because of the strong success of the PS2 and a lack of quality third party games. Both Nintendo and MS have released or bought companies and released excellent first party software that have given their respective consoles some great hits. But you obviously didn't read that article you linked to that closely. Do you think the average gamer over the age of 50 can find more games to play on the Gamecube, XBox, or PS2? I would guess that the less violent, more kid-targeted games [as you would call them] would appear to someone over 50. I think an older person would be more inclined to enjoy something like Pikmin than GTA or Halo. In conclusion, your analysis is trite and without depth. M-rated games are not the only games for adults. Did you know that there are E-rated games? Do you know what the E stands for? EVERYONE. That includes adults.
Perhaps backwards compatibility is not an issue for you but you should realize that in the general populace, it does have an actual effect on sales, just as the 99.99 vs. 100 thing does, as I mentioned earlier. When trying to understand the decisions of a company, one's personal bias is not the way to examine the right and wrong decisions. Your analysis is a lot like saying, "Well, I only like racing games. Sony should just sell racing games because that is all that anyone wants." You need to look at percentages and trends, not personal opinion.
And as evidenced by sales of Gameboy Advance games, people still enjoy SNES games and enjoy playing them. Having them as an option is not a bad idea.
I would wager a guess that you have no idea how the PS2 does emulation of the PS1. Until you do a study and have hard numbers to back up how many people use the backwards compatibility of the PS2, your statements are just unbacked ranting.
There was no need for you to reiterate what was being said in the article since I wasn't commenting on the article but rather the often used line that there is an anti-Nintendo slant in the media. Since one article, slanted as it may be [although this article appears not to be], does not prove or disprove this point, reading the article has nothing to do with my point. I'm sorry if you cannot understand this and more sorry that you've been reduced to being crude. Have a good night.
And wouldn't Nintendo need to do something spectacular to come out on top? Sony has the name recognition now. Back in the day, playing Nintendo was the same as playing video games. Now that phrase has been replaced by the Playstation. In order for Nintendo to come out on top, they need to do something spectacular - that's not anti-Nintendo, that's just the truth. Isn't it? Please, tell me if you think that it is not true. Tell me that you think Nintendo has so much momentum that they can release a mediocre system and come out on top.
You try reading it again.
As for the 1 title every 6 months - I waited for the price drop/Zelda bundle and there are more than enough good games to keep me occupied, especially since I also own a PS2.
I have not noticed the media small talking the Gamecube, as you put it. Many people keep saying this but I read quite a few gaming sites and have a subscription to a gaming magazine [no need to give a plug to them here] and have found most coverage fairly balanced. Gaming sites and magazines review the games. They don't normally have fanboy discussions of which console is best so I don't know where all you people are finding this great media hatred for the Gamecube - please link to an example or two or ten, in order to assure me that there is a conspiracy.
I'm not saying that the original poster was correct in his statement. In fact, it sounds quite foolish to think that a video game console was designed with something other than gaming in mind. [And of course, the poster offers no evidence.] But your counter to that statement is weak, at best.
Again, I can find plenty of pro-Nintendo writing. Zelda and Metroid have been the critics darlings. I think that Nintendo gets bad press over the lack of third party software and the lack of a real online prescence. Don't be so paranoid until you've compiled statistics and found that Nintendo is taking undue criticism. I see many game writers badmouthing all three of the consoles. Let's see a link to see of the unfair reporting you've seen. Perhaps the numerous posts on games.slashdot.org regarding how the price cut led to greater sales? Oh wait, that wouldn't fit your argument. So come, back up your nonsense.