-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Bloomberg: "Nintendo's full-year net income is the highest since 2001" !
- Thread starter lancubap
- Start date
- Status
Mama Smurf
My penis is still intact.
What you have to remember in arguments with Amir0x is that he's always right. Always. No one knows how he alone amongst all humans is never wrong, but rumours persist that when God was creating him, he used early blueprints from the Zombie Jesus model.
Obviously it still needs some tweaking, but on the always knowing things better than you front, he's got it just right.
Obviously it still needs some tweaking, but on the always knowing things better than you front, he's got it just right.
imho, this isn't about the DS, or about Brain Training or any short term issue that's hot on GAF. I think a lot of the irrational behavior derives from the fear that Nintendo may actually be right about a lot of things and probably a healthy feeling of condescencion too. Having figured they've grown out of a company's games only to see the company doing very well is always a thorn on most Sony die-hards I have met (both in Japan and US). But it's always amusing to watch their irrational explanations and reactions to the emotions they experience, when they try to spin something good into something bad, as is the attempts of many here.
-If that helps you deal with a dissenting opinion, I won't stop you from saying it. But I think it's pretty sad that you think in a public messageboard only Nintendo fans should post in Nintendo news and discussion threads. You think I'm a troll, super. I don't care.snatches said:
-I meant what I said. What they did could just have conceivably have been done by someone else. Assuming that if Nintendo hadn't come along we would still be using a Atari pad is a big stretch, imo.
Bluemercury said:
If the Revmote really is all that, then yes, I would want to use it with every game I play on every system I own. But right now, that's an unknown. As a gamer, I certainly do hope the Revmote will REALLY change the way I play first-person type games (e.g., Oblivion, Halo, etc. since that perspective is my favorite in games). But who fucking knows? Maybe it won't. It's 50/50 right now. I'm just as curious, if not optimistic, as the next guy. But nobody's really considering that the control scheme could also just be a big bust.
There's a reason why every console adopted the analog stick and why the PSP isn't so hot in the 3D game control department. Right now, I'm just going by Nintendo's hardware track record with the millionth iteration of the Game Boy and then the DS (not to mention the GameCube -- built on the shoulders of Pokemon profits, how innovative and spectacular was that console?). How many of us wishes Nintendo would have "gotten it right" the first time around? See also: Nintendo DS Lite.
At any rate, I'd appreciate if you quit citing where I work now as fodder for your argument. I'd still be posting the same line of reasoning even if I was still at 1up.
AdmiralViscen said:
For this, I blame Nintendo directly. They were really modest about their specs, unlike the other two. Now, as gamers we could probably appreciate the modesty, but come on now. Nintendo didn't even TRY to let the public know that the GC was more powerful than the PS2. So, I don't really buy that argument. The others I'll agree with, though.
AdmiralViscen
Banned
GitarooMan said:
Okay, this is getting tiring.
-The same piece of kit would cost more from Nintendo because they are less able to loss-lead without the huge corporate backing Sony and MS have, and without stuff like media hub functionaltiy and Blu Ray to subsidize the console investment.
-$299 would be hard to swallow for 1. people looking at the weird revmote, 2. the fact that a 360 Core will probably be cheaper than that at the end of this year, 3. people have a more favorable impression of XBox than Nintendo (after two different consoles failed to supply games in quantity for more than 3.5 years), and 4. the other two consoles are pretty much guaranteed to have more games on them. So why get the Nintendo for the same price?
-GameCube had a good design, and devs didn't jump on board, because it was the odd man out and because first party sales are so huge.
-Nintendo made a console more powerful than PS2, and everyone assumed that it was less powerful. Why waste money on a more powerful console when it won't even get the credit it deserves?
-Who wants third party reports? The whole point of Revmote and lower specs is to prevent publishers from dumping ports on Nintendo's console and calling it a day. Nintendo is pushing for unique content through total differentiation. I like unique content, don't you?
My previous post:
AdmiralViscen said:
To those who are wondering why it had to be SO weak:
-Devs will already know the hardware from their GameCube work, hopefully allowing for more games to come out more quickly, and to make up for the fact that they have to figure out how to use a whole new control scheme. That's going to be a big hurdle, so it's a good idea to make other aspects of the hardware as easy as possible.
-Cheap devkits for independent companies.
-Low budgets to give third parties a reason to spend time with it.
-Possible MSRP of $150 would allow Revo to hit the ground running.
PhoenixDark
Banned
chespace said:
Wait - you're really Che? Oh snaps! Hello.
clearacell
Member
I still dont' get why people say not having HD support will somehow lessen the experience... the Revolution is going to be the only console which the experience will be more interactive than ever before. It's going to be an entirely different and new experience than people are used to.
And as for lower specs not benefitting the average gamer? Well, a lower price point sure as hell helps ME out, especially since I'm a multiplatform gamer. I'm glad I won't be buying 3 clones of the same console, but rather 2 clones and a wacky cousin
And as for lower specs not benefitting the average gamer? Well, a lower price point sure as hell helps ME out, especially since I'm a multiplatform gamer. I'm glad I won't be buying 3 clones of the same console, but rather 2 clones and a wacky cousin
GitarooMan
Member
AdmiralViscen said:
Why is it tiring, I understand Nintendo's decision to go in a certain direction, but it was far from the only direction they could go. Don't act like their current path was the only one they could take. Nintendo has plenty of money to make such a system, they are not poor. Devs didn't jump on board but that is in part because of Nintendo's unwillingness to get Western developers on board lately, either through outright buying them or through giving them money (like what they did with n-space, except with good developers). I also don't remember everyone assuming it was less powerful, just that it had less software people wanted than PS2.
When I say ports, I mean multiplatform games from EA, Ubisoft, etc. I certainly wouldn't see it as a bad thing if these multifplatform games (say Burnout, BiA, etc.) were best on Rev, I would see it as a benefit. It certainly helped Xbox I think to generally have preferable multi-platform games. There will be unique content on all of the systems.
Also, who says it's got to be a media center, just a moderately powerful game system.
I have no fear at all about that, I wish them the best and hope they do knock my socks off. But based of what happened to my opinion of their quality with the 64, GC, and recently the DS, I have good reason to doubt it. I don't have an emotional stake in a videogame company either way, and I'm just as ready to voice strong critiques of Microsoft or Sony as I am of Nintendo if the opportunity should present itself, as this thread presented me with an opportunity to voice my strong feelings about what Nintendo is doing. I'm glad they're making money and will be around a long time, I just wish that had some kind of benefit for me.Deku said:
clearacell said:I still dont' get why people say not having HD support will somehow lessen the experience... the Revolution is going to be the only console which the experience will be more interactive than ever before. It's going to be an entirely different and new experience than people are used to.
And as for lower specs not benefitting the average gamer? Well, a lower price point sure as hell helps ME out, especially since I'm a multiplatform gamer. I'm glad I won't be buying 3 clones of the same console, but rather 2 clones and a wacky cousin
You know, there's the thing. About 90% of the people here who intend to buy a Revolution will also be buying AT LEAST one of the two other next-gen consoles. So why can't people just accept that the PS3 and the 360 will do their thing similarly (one with an East-oriented library and one with a Western-oriented library) while allowing for the Revolution to simply be going after a different sort of experience? Do we really need three consoles doing basically the same thing?
AdmiralViscen
Banned
GitarooMan said:
I didn't say they were poor. Read the part where I quoted myself for the reasons why it doesn't make sense for them to make a multimedia hub like the other two. Unlike MS and Sony, the Revolution is not a Trojan horse for the parent company's other consumer products.
What other direction were they supposed to go in? Who's going to drop $299 for Revo when they could get a 360 Core for $250 with more games released, more games on future releases, and a pretty positive public opinion of the XBox in general? This is assuming they aren't immediately scared off by the controller. Why would devs do anything but dump ports on Revo the way they did with Cube? And I knew exactly what sort of games you were talking about.
Nintendo's situation is more complex than you make it out to be.
EOGamer said:
The point is: If you are not entertained by Nintendo games, then why post in a thread discussion about their new console? Why? I post in threads related to stuff I have an active interest in. You don't have an active interest in Nintendo hardware or software, by your own admission. So by definition that makes you a troll.
And yes, what they have done in the last 20 years could have been done by anyone else, but it wasn't. Why is that? Because the companies that they compete with (whom I like, BTW, see: my avatar) have larger corporate agendas than they do. Games are a small piece of their overall puzzle. Games are everything to Nintendo. Which is why they are eager to do what their competitors decide to ignore. Innovate the medium, grow the market. The DS success proves that they are moving in the right direction. And the revolution is the pinnacle of this thinking.
Thank God Nintendo is willing to take the risks that MS and Sony don't have the balls to.
Seriously.
chespace:
> But nobody's really considering that the control scheme could also just be a big bust.
No, that's certainly an original thought. Kudos to you sir for being the first one to point it out. With this in mind I think Nintendo should just scrap the whole Revolution project. They should go the safe route and sit still as their marketshare further declines.
> How many of us wishes Nintendo would have "gotten it right" the first time around? See
> also: Nintendo DS Lite.
I don't know what Nintendo's designers were thinking when they conceived the original DS but I'm not sure what the DS Lite has to do with your argument about Nintendo making too much money on subpar technology. The DS Lite is the same subpar hardware with better screens, a fancy new design and a higher price.
> But nobody's really considering that the control scheme could also just be a big bust.
No, that's certainly an original thought. Kudos to you sir for being the first one to point it out. With this in mind I think Nintendo should just scrap the whole Revolution project. They should go the safe route and sit still as their marketshare further declines.
> How many of us wishes Nintendo would have "gotten it right" the first time around? See
> also: Nintendo DS Lite.
I don't know what Nintendo's designers were thinking when they conceived the original DS but I'm not sure what the DS Lite has to do with your argument about Nintendo making too much money on subpar technology. The DS Lite is the same subpar hardware with better screens, a fancy new design and a higher price.
GitarooMan
Member
AdmiralViscen said:
But you're acting like it's impossible for them to change that image (i.e. public opinion). What if a 299 Rev had more and better games than the 360 Core, is that so outrageous. And I thought the controller wasn't supposed to scare people, it's supposed to draw people. My point is that just because the Gamecube was X, Y, and Z doesn't mean Nintendo couldn't fix those problems. People have short memories, bring out a hot new system, people won't care about Gamecube anymore. Everyone's favorite Nintendo-esque company, Apple, did just that, reshaping their image and becoming "hip" again.
I think what you might be saying, and it might have some validity, is that no matter what Nintendo does, they cannot compete on the level of MS and Sony in the console battle. I guess I just think that I'm not so sure that's true. I think Nintendo decided it was riskier to do that than do what their doing now, we'll see how it turns out.
-Becuase I read replies that intrested me enough to respond to them with my own thoughts. It's discussion, not trolling. Comparing and debating viewpoints on revolution and the direction Nintendo is taking is an active intrest I have in them. Again, you can throw around troll all you want, I don't care. You're a name on my computer screen, when I click the red x in the upper right corner you stop existing, so it doesn't bother me.snatches said:
-If games weren't a big piece of the puzzle for the other companies, they wouldn't have both outsold the Gamecube. Sony didn't sell 100 million consoles becuase the PS2 can play DVD, they sold that much becuase they have more and better games. Johnny consumer doesn't buy Xbox or PS2 becuase they have cool mutimedia functions, he buys them becuase they have a ton of games that appeals to him.
why the hell are there people always showing up in these threads and DEMANDING nintendo does this or that for them? OH WE WANT HD I WANT ONLINE WAH WAH WAH.
you're not entitled to anything. nintendo is an entertainment company. they're not selling you water in a post-apocalyptic world. revolution will be a luxury, not a necessity. if you don't like it, DON'T BUY IT. nobody owes you anything.
it's like some anime fans who think theyr'e ENTITLED to d/l and watch anime for free for whatever reason.
and not caring about nintendo's financials doesn't put you on some moral pedestal above the fans that do. you don't? good for you chief. plenty of others love nintendo games and they'd like to see them stick around for much longer and these profits are assuring.
you're not entitled to anything. nintendo is an entertainment company. they're not selling you water in a post-apocalyptic world. revolution will be a luxury, not a necessity. if you don't like it, DON'T BUY IT. nobody owes you anything.
it's like some anime fans who think theyr'e ENTITLED to d/l and watch anime for free for whatever reason.
and not caring about nintendo's financials doesn't put you on some moral pedestal above the fans that do. you don't? good for you chief. plenty of others love nintendo games and they'd like to see them stick around for much longer and these profits are assuring.
The Friendly Monster
Member
snatches said:
Don't forget Dreamcast, I used Dreamcast online all the time. I used it as a web browser before I had a PC.
GitarooMan
Member
Chrono said:
I don't see people demanding Nintendo do anything, just discussing the pros/cons of their direction and decisions. Is that so bad? It's done with the other companies all the time (i.e. MS should have made the hard drive standard, Sony should change the controller, etc., etc.).
EOGamer said:
Games are not a big piece of the puzzle for either company, and this plays no bearing on how many consoles they sell. Their respective games divisions do a great job of selling their products, but it doesn't mean they have a large impact on the overall success of the company. Some would NOW say that Sony Corp is betting everything on PS3, but not as it relates to the games or innovation, but how it pertains to BluRay licensing and selling Sony IP, like Sony Music, Sony and MGM movies, etc. It represents a Trojan Horse for other Sony interests.
The PS2 did have more and better games than the gamecube. Thank God Nintendo provided that analog stick for them to control those games with.
Oh, and Johnny consumer doesn't have $400 to spend on a console, BTW. Johnny consumer shops at Walmart. $400 consoles are for hardcore gamers or Richie Rich.
Fuck this DS lite first time around bullshit. This revision isn't like the GBA SP revision. That was something that should've been done first time around. Atleast a fucking light in the screen anyways. DS lite is just improving something as soon as it becomes feasible to do so.
ethelred said:
They're not going to be "doing the same thing" because they're going to have different lineups of exclusive games. Having a PS3 or XB360 isn't going to do anything improve the experience of the next Mario or F-Zero game that those systems won't be seeing. People keep talking about how big of a warchest Nintendo has, but what are they doing with it to give people the best experience possible (which includes A/V, and if you think otherwise, avoid the new systems altogether). Even the whole "RE4 exclusivity" agreement was nothing more than handshake. It doesn't benefit anyone who isn't a shareholder (or a cheerleader) for them to skim on the technical capabilities of the system.
Mama Smurf
My penis is still intact.
Mooreberg said:
It doesn't benefit poorer people?
Mama Smurf
My penis is still intact.
Yeah? Well I'm "poorer" and probably won't be able to afford a 360/PS3 for at least a couple of years, and I really appreciate a cheaper console.
Mama Smurf
My penis is still intact.
That'd be nice, and I imagine Brain Training type software will be around that price, but I doubt it for the rest.
If they're anything like me, they sell the majority of their games when they're done with them to fund the next lot. And sell their systems to fund the next lot.
If they're anything like me, they sell the majority of their games when they're done with them to fund the next lot. And sell their systems to fund the next lot.
soul creator
Member
eh...why do some people think "HD" is responsible for $60 games and horrible development cycles?
by that logic, every PC game for the past 10 years would be $60+...and the Xbox 1 would've been $500 (omg an "HD" console in 2001! and yes, I know the majority of games were still 480p).
Also, as of now (with the 360), it's not like the system is just so drastically more expensive than previous systems. The PS2 and PSX both launched with "similar" hardware for $299.99, as the 360 does. The "non-tard" (hah) 360 is $399.99, but it's not a horrible cost for what you get. Ask all those folks who bought a hard drive, network adapter, wireless controller, and headset for their original PS2, and you'll end up way over that amount, lol. Yet PS2 sold around 100 million systems, a ton more than the $99-$199 Dreamcast and GC.
And for accessory pricing, a lot of people forget that PS2 and Xbox accessories cost mostly the same amount when they were first released also ($40 memory cards and controllers), so it's not like it's some brand new thing. That's just the early adopter price. It's not like a 360 will permanently be $300-400 for the next 5 years.
Aaaaand sorta back on topic, I completely understand why Nintendo is doing what they're doing...but I'm not gonna act like having an "HD" Nintendo console would've automatically made it $400. Still, it remains to be seen whether the Revolution literally can't output anything higher than 640x480, or that they're just not forcing developers to support 720p or something. Mario Party 9 or WarioWare in 720p is not going to drastically increase development times people.
So in summation, currently the "games are too expensive omg crash!" argument is a bit excessive, nintendo has a good business strategy, but I'm not gonna pretend like they're doing it to save the industry from itself.
Or something.
by that logic, every PC game for the past 10 years would be $60+...and the Xbox 1 would've been $500 (omg an "HD" console in 2001! and yes, I know the majority of games were still 480p).
Also, as of now (with the 360), it's not like the system is just so drastically more expensive than previous systems. The PS2 and PSX both launched with "similar" hardware for $299.99, as the 360 does. The "non-tard" (hah) 360 is $399.99, but it's not a horrible cost for what you get. Ask all those folks who bought a hard drive, network adapter, wireless controller, and headset for their original PS2, and you'll end up way over that amount, lol. Yet PS2 sold around 100 million systems, a ton more than the $99-$199 Dreamcast and GC.
And for accessory pricing, a lot of people forget that PS2 and Xbox accessories cost mostly the same amount when they were first released also ($40 memory cards and controllers), so it's not like it's some brand new thing. That's just the early adopter price. It's not like a 360 will permanently be $300-400 for the next 5 years.
Aaaaand sorta back on topic, I completely understand why Nintendo is doing what they're doing...but I'm not gonna act like having an "HD" Nintendo console would've automatically made it $400. Still, it remains to be seen whether the Revolution literally can't output anything higher than 640x480, or that they're just not forcing developers to support 720p or something. Mario Party 9 or WarioWare in 720p is not going to drastically increase development times people.
So in summation, currently the "games are too expensive omg crash!" argument is a bit excessive, nintendo has a good business strategy, but I'm not gonna pretend like they're doing it to save the industry from itself.
Or something.
BuzzJive said:
That literally has shit all to do with this discussion.
Battersea Power Station said:
Which ^ doesn't get, apparently. Nobody suggested HD related to improvements in gameplay, only that it was superior to SD.
Which it is.
Scrow said:
I don't think you've read anything since you're still not getting it. You guys are listing cons about implementing the thing, which has little to do with the fact that HD is fucking superior to SD. That's the impossible to dispute fact. But if you can list a case where SD image quality is better than HD image quality, then we'd get the ball rolling. "It costs more"/"It uses more RAM" does not change that central aspect.
And then that's why we had the argument that at the end of the day, it's always a good aspect for me the consumer... 'cause even if you didn't have an HDTV now, you will have one in the future (ten years, whenever). And then you can get a PS3 or 360 after numerous price drops, and you'll be getting the benefit. And it's always a great thing.
Also, cursing has nothing to do with the strength of my case. Cursing is just a regular part of my vocabulary. I like to say it's because I'm originally from Brooklyn, but you can picture a frail e-nerd weakly flailing his arms at the screen in rage if it makes you feel better.
cybamerc said:
The price does not change the image quality. Sorry, that's where your argument keeps getting derailed. Also I don't care about casual gamers or mythical non-gamers. Fuck those people. Also, Revolution wouldn't have to be $399. Barring anything incredible addition to the revmote from whatever 'secret' Nintendo has there, Revolution can do its thing for a respectable $249 - $299 without the extraneous features of 360 and PS3 tacked on. But that'd probably mean Nintendo might have to lose 20 bucks per console for the first year. But, ya know, I guess I should be programmed to think from the business perspective or something.
I suppose we can't make any definitive judgment about the viability of their Revolution pricing model until we get the actual price, though...
cybamerc said:
I don't know how much clearer I can make it that I don't give a good fuck what's good for the "huge corporation", only me. But I admit it may be a little difficult to distinguish in a thread that started out originally as a business statement.
This whole debate started as a way to refute the garbage about how the consumers weren't ready for this and that because Nintendo wasn't on board. Consumers were ready for online, consumers are ready for HD. It doesn't need to be a MAJORITY for them to do it. And certainly, it's important to have a futureproofed console.
GitarooMan said:
Correct.
Monk said:
Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony aren't doing the forcing, but yes... it is the answer because HD is always gonna be better. Once it approximates the price of regular TVs (and it will in only a few years), anyone who buys a regular SD set is basically just slow.
ethelred said:
It means exactly what I think it means. HD > SD is an unchanging rule. Read GitarooMan post.
Mama Smurf said:
It's true. Even more so when discussing facts like HD > SD!
radioheadrule83
Banned
SantaCruZer said:
They were Russian.
The Friendly Monster
Member
Jiggy37 said:
God no, if the controller fails the console fails.
Cosmozone said:
If it was up to Sony, the next gen would still be a few years off. But no, MS had to rush out the damn 360 and force the competition to do the same and Nintendo following like little penguins with outdated tech pretending a new controller will save gaming....
I dont think its even necessary for Sony as much as it is Nintendo to release a seccessor anytime soon, Ps2 is still outselling 360 in the US on a monthly basis by a good chunk, Europe we dont really know anything besides the fact that 360 is the best selling consols along with PSP so far in 2006, and lets not even talk about Japan and the 360's situation there.
Nintendo got thier asses handed to them by in US and EU by MS last gen., so they had to counter act the 360 sooner than later.
But damn it, Ps2 still has a good 2-3 years in it, ATLEAST. If it wasnt for stupid MS and Nintendo quickly following suit PS3 would be a good 2-3 years off, LIKE IT SHOULD BE.
What is up with these 4 year generations MS is trying to push onto us?
Lets not forget about precious Nintendo, who pretty much gave up on Gamecube sometime in 2004.
Sony on the other hand was still strongly supporting the PS2 and so were all the other third parties.
Thats why everyone should be thankful Sony is the home console market leader and no one else. Let's pray that NEVER changes, or it may just be the end of gaming as we know it.
.
Chris Remo
Member
chespace said:
Don't you have collegues or former colleagues or at least industry acquaintances who have used the thing and can speak for it (I don't know/remember if 1UP has, that's why I ask)? I've talked to people who have and their reactions have been incredibly positive, especially for the Metroid Prime 2 retrofit demo. Sure, there's a very real chance it could just not work for a lot of games, but I'd say the actual evidence from hands on impressions has been quite encouraging.
But DS Lite has the exact same hardware features as DS, it's just packaged differently. There's no actual difference in how the thing works or plays. It's like Sony's PSOne or PS2 slim or whatever it's called. As far as the GameCube, what kind of hardware innovation does it have to live up to? It's just a regular console. Did Nintendo make some early claim that the controller layout was amazing or something (genuine question since I have no idea)? If so, I'd be surprised if anyone took such a claim that seriously.
- Status