|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 12:17 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 12:33 pm
Heeeeeeeey.........
What are you trying to say about me?
.................
Well, I've got my name in a thread's title now. biggrin
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 12:46 pm
OKay I lost interest and skipped to the graphs. That's really interesting, and heck it even makes sense when you consider how little money goes into nintendo's stuff compared to microsoft & sony. But I honestly don't see how that makes nintendo the overall winner.
To me it would make more sense to compare how many consol units & games were sold (excluding units that replaced broken ones, or used units that were resold), and then use those figures to figure out who won.
Shouldn't we bear in mind that the ONLY leg nintendo has to stand on is gaming? Sony is in ALL things electronic, and microsoft has pcs. They CAN work with a deficit and still survive because they have other areas to get money from. Nintendo, unless I'm mistaken, doesn't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 3:24 pm
Sakyh OKay I lost interest and skipped to the graphs. That's really interesting, and heck it even makes sense when you consider how little money goes into nintendo's stuff compared to microsoft & sony. But I honestly don't see how that makes nintendo the overall winner. To me it would make more sense to compare how many consol units & games were sold (excluding units that replaced broken ones, or used units that were resold), and then use those figures to figure out who won. Shouldn't we bear in mind that the ONLY leg nintendo has to stand on is gaming? Sony is in ALL things electronic, and microsoft has pcs. They CAN work with a deficit and still survive because they have other areas to get money from. Nintendo, unless I'm mistaken, doesn't. I agree with Sakyh. The goals of companies are profit, yes...so Nintendo wins this. But the reason people rely on console sales to say who wins the console wars aren't for the profit of the company...but how many people like the console and play it's games. If we're looking at this from the perspective of gamers as a whole, the PS2 still won. Gamers don't care about the profit, they care about the games. If one sells more than the other...then they won. Stockholders care about profit, gamers don't. Either way, Microsoft and Sony need to get their act together if they want to survive in the gaming industry...that's what I think this shows.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 4:38 pm
Canis Lupus the LoneWolf Sakyh OKay I lost interest and skipped to the graphs. That's really interesting, and heck it even makes sense when you consider how little money goes into nintendo's stuff compared to microsoft & sony. But I honestly don't see how that makes nintendo the overall winner. To me it would make more sense to compare how many consol units & games were sold (excluding units that replaced broken ones, or used units that were resold), and then use those figures to figure out who won. Shouldn't we bear in mind that the ONLY leg nintendo has to stand on is gaming? Sony is in ALL things electronic, and microsoft has pcs. They CAN work with a deficit and still survive because they have other areas to get money from. Nintendo, unless I'm mistaken, doesn't. I agree with Sakyh. The goals of companies are profit, yes...so Nintendo wins this. But the reason people rely on console sales to say who wins the console wars aren't for the profit of the company...but how many people like the console and play it's games. If we're looking at this from the perspective of gamers as a whole, the PS2 still won. Gamers don't care about the profit, they care about the games. If one sells more than the other...then they won. Stockholders care about profit, gamers don't. Either way, Microsoft and Sony need to get their act together if they want to survive in the gaming industry...that's what I think this shows. I think developers care about this too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 7:15 pm
Mr Daxel Canis Lupus the LoneWolf Sakyh OKay I lost interest and skipped to the graphs. That's really interesting, and heck it even makes sense when you consider how little money goes into nintendo's stuff compared to microsoft & sony. But I honestly don't see how that makes nintendo the overall winner. To me it would make more sense to compare how many consol units & games were sold (excluding units that replaced broken ones, or used units that were resold), and then use those figures to figure out who won. Shouldn't we bear in mind that the ONLY leg nintendo has to stand on is gaming? Sony is in ALL things electronic, and microsoft has pcs. They CAN work with a deficit and still survive because they have other areas to get money from. Nintendo, unless I'm mistaken, doesn't. I agree with Sakyh. The goals of companies are profit, yes...so Nintendo wins this. But the reason people rely on console sales to say who wins the console wars aren't for the profit of the company...but how many people like the console and play it's games. If we're looking at this from the perspective of gamers as a whole, the PS2 still won. Gamers don't care about the profit, they care about the games. If one sells more than the other...then they won. Stockholders care about profit, gamers don't. Either way, Microsoft and Sony need to get their act together if they want to survive in the gaming industry...that's what I think this shows. I think developers care about this too. It's a hybrid with developers. They care both about the well-being of the companies, and what most gamers want.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 7:52 pm
Canis Lupus the LoneWolf Mr Daxel Canis Lupus the LoneWolf Sakyh OKay I lost interest and skipped to the graphs. That's really interesting, and heck it even makes sense when you consider how little money goes into nintendo's stuff compared to microsoft & sony. But I honestly don't see how that makes nintendo the overall winner. To me it would make more sense to compare how many consol units & games were sold (excluding units that replaced broken ones, or used units that were resold), and then use those figures to figure out who won. Shouldn't we bear in mind that the ONLY leg nintendo has to stand on is gaming? Sony is in ALL things electronic, and microsoft has pcs. They CAN work with a deficit and still survive because they have other areas to get money from. Nintendo, unless I'm mistaken, doesn't. I agree with Sakyh. The goals of companies are profit, yes...so Nintendo wins this. But the reason people rely on console sales to say who wins the console wars aren't for the profit of the company...but how many people like the console and play it's games. If we're looking at this from the perspective of gamers as a whole, the PS2 still won. Gamers don't care about the profit, they care about the games. If one sells more than the other...then they won. Stockholders care about profit, gamers don't. Either way, Microsoft and Sony need to get their act together if they want to survive in the gaming industry...that's what I think this shows. I think developers care about this too. It's a hybrid with developers. They care both about the well-being of the companies, and what most gamers want. They (theorhetically) care about getting paid. WE gotta keep in mind, games are expensive as heck to produce now-a-days. If I was a game developer, I'd just want tyhe game to sell enough to wear I'd get my $$.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 7:56 pm
Canis Lupus the LoneWolf Sakyh OKay I lost interest and skipped to the graphs. That's really interesting, and heck it even makes sense when you consider how little money goes into nintendo's stuff compared to microsoft & sony. But I honestly don't see how that makes nintendo the overall winner. To me it would make more sense to compare how many consol units & games were sold (excluding units that replaced broken ones, or used units that were resold), and then use those figures to figure out who won. Shouldn't we bear in mind that the ONLY leg nintendo has to stand on is gaming? Sony is in ALL things electronic, and microsoft has pcs. They CAN work with a deficit and still survive because they have other areas to get money from. Nintendo, unless I'm mistaken, doesn't. I agree with Sakyh. The goals of companies are profit, yes...so Nintendo wins this. But the reason people rely on console sales to say who wins the console wars aren't for the profit of the company...but how many people like the console and play it's games. If we're looking at this from the perspective of gamers as a whole, the PS2 still won. Gamers don't care about the profit, they care about the games. If one sells more than the other...then they won. Stockholders care about profit, gamers don't. Either way, Microsoft and Sony need to get their act together if they want to survive in the gaming industry...that's what I think this shows. Few thoughts: A: this basically nullifies the argument that X company will have to withdraw, seeing as how that companies that need more funding are getting some. B: having lots of systems can give you lots of third-party support, but First and Third Party comes from the company's own pockets. Also, the support for the Wii...... it's kind of divided. There's a lot of shovelware out there, though casuals still apparently get what they want. As for hardcore gamers, Nintendo can really push First- and second party games, so hardcores are getting games, too, but its divided like I said. (that being said, not 100% of all PS2 games were pure, either. My sister got Silver Buckle Stables. D smile C: @ Sakyh Nintendo makes toys, cards, and I've seen clothing with Nintendo trademarks as well. I'm sure some profits from the clothes get to Nintendo one way or another. Still, getting back to stockholders. If they figure they can get an extra cent per share by leaving gamers hanging, there's a distinct possibility of that happening. How would they figure replacements, anyways? I assure you that my replacement PS2 is up on the sales chart.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 8:05 pm
tangocat777 C: @ Sakyh Nintendo makes toys, cards, and I've seen clothing with Nintendo trademarks as well. I'm sure some profits from the clothes get to Nintendo one way or another. Still, getting back to stockholders. If they figure they can get an extra cent per share by leaving gamers hanging, there's a distinct possibility of that happening. How would they figure replacements, anyways? I assure you that my replacement PS2 is up on the sales chart. No, I know they do other stuff, but all that stuff directly corrolates to video games, so I put them into the same category.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 9:01 pm
tangocat777 Canis Lupus the LoneWolf Sakyh OKay I lost interest and skipped to the graphs. That's really interesting, and heck it even makes sense when you consider how little money goes into nintendo's stuff compared to microsoft & sony. But I honestly don't see how that makes nintendo the overall winner. To me it would make more sense to compare how many consol units & games were sold (excluding units that replaced broken ones, or used units that were resold), and then use those figures to figure out who won. Shouldn't we bear in mind that the ONLY leg nintendo has to stand on is gaming? Sony is in ALL things electronic, and microsoft has pcs. They CAN work with a deficit and still survive because they have other areas to get money from. Nintendo, unless I'm mistaken, doesn't. I agree with Sakyh. The goals of companies are profit, yes...so Nintendo wins this. But the reason people rely on console sales to say who wins the console wars aren't for the profit of the company...but how many people like the console and play it's games. If we're looking at this from the perspective of gamers as a whole, the PS2 still won. Gamers don't care about the profit, they care about the games. If one sells more than the other...then they won. Stockholders care about profit, gamers don't. Either way, Microsoft and Sony need to get their act together if they want to survive in the gaming industry...that's what I think this shows. Few thoughts: A: this basically nullifies the argument that X company will have to withdraw, seeing as how that companies that need more funding are getting some. B: having lots of systems can give you lots of third-party support, but First and Third Party comes from the company's own pockets. Also, the support for the Wii...... it's kind of divided. There's a lot of shovelware out there, though casuals still apparently get what they want. As for hardcore gamers, Nintendo can really push First- and second party games, so hardcores are getting games, too, but its divided like I said. (that being said, not 100% of all PS2 games were pure, either. My sister got Silver Buckle Stables. D smile C: @ Sakyh Nintendo makes toys, cards, and I've seen clothing with Nintendo trademarks as well. I'm sure some profits from the clothes get to Nintendo one way or another. Still, getting back to stockholders. If they figure they can get an extra cent per share by leaving gamers hanging, there's a distinct possibility of that happening. How would they figure replacements, anyways? I assure you that my replacement PS2 is up on the sales chart. This depends on the failure rate of the PS2s...and I doubt it's as high as the RRoD. And even then, RRoD isn't anywhere near 50%. So replacement console sells wouldn't have made a huge difference. I bet if you took all the replacement sells out, the PS2 still would have sales a lot higher than the GC and Xbox. 120 million is just too much. If the failure rate was 100%, the amount of sells would be like 60 million...still more than both combined. The PS2 had a lot of third party support, and a lot of games. It was the console to have in a lot of gamers eyes. Financially, Nintendo won. From the view of a majority of the gamers, Sony won. Can't change the past. But people should care less about that kind of crap...buy the console and games you want, regardless of who is "winning."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 9:18 pm
Canis Lupus the LoneWolf But people should care less about that kind of crap...buy the console and games you want, regardless of who is "winning." Exactly. Like Scott from VG Cats points out in A Debate For The AgesWe should stop bitching and bickering and just enjoy our systems. Which reminds me: WHOOHOO BIOSHOCK'S COMING OUT FOR THE PS3!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 11:12 pm
I didn't read all the back and forth, but the point of the article is simple, and shows why Nintendo was/is/and likely will still be a winner:
They have the money to go next-gen.
If a company is in the red, making another generation is not a great choice. MS got lucky now that they are moving into the green and making up for last losses. Sony took a huge hit with their pull for Blu-Ray, and that will take time to recover. Four or five years from now, the financial situation will be important, because it will determine whether or not we will see a PS4 or a Xbxo [3rd].
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Drinky McIrish Vice Captain
|
Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 11:55 pm
All this says to me is that Nintendo is less willing to push the envelope than the other companies... And isn't as well invested in other technologies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 5:48 am
Drinky McIrish All this says to me is that Nintendo is less willing to push the envelope than the other companies... And isn't as well invested in other technologies. I don't think that's true. I heard an argument for PS3 once...basically (and this was a GS employee) he was saying that Bioshock was just about the pinnacle of what the 360 was capable of, and in a few years, the PS3 will be WAAAAAAYY beyond that, noting that Bioshock was DAMN pretty. Now here's my summary of this argument: Sony isn't maximizing the hardware. People have been bitching about the Wii's hardware as long as I can remember, but Nintendo is using it well, as opposed to just having it. Not to mention that the decision to go with motion controls is a move towards something fresher (so long as someone gets off their a** and makes good games for it). And on the note of "investing in newer technology", the ONLY reason Sony put a Blu-Ray player in the PS3 is to win the format war. Of COURSE they're invested.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Drinky McIrish Vice Captain
|
Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 9:02 am
SuperJawes2112 Drinky McIrish All this says to me is that Nintendo is less willing to push the envelope than the other companies... And isn't as well invested in other technologies. I don't think that's true. I heard an argument for PS3 once...basically (and this was a GS employee) he was saying that Bioshock was just about the pinnacle of what the 360 was capable of, and in a few years, the PS3 will be WAAAAAAYY beyond that, noting that Bioshock was DAMN pretty. Now here's my summary of this argument: Sony isn't maximizing the hardware. People have been bitching about the Wii's hardware as long as I can remember, but Nintendo is using it well, as opposed to just having it. Not to mention that the decision to go with motion controls is a move towards something fresher (so long as someone gets off their a** and makes good games for it). And on the note of "investing in newer technology", the ONLY reason Sony put a Blu-Ray player in the PS3 is to win the format war. Of COURSE they're invested. One of the reasons, if it were the ONLY reason, then I'm sure we'd still be seeing PS3 games getting printed on DVD9's, especially with the ability to install the game onto the PS3, it'd really maximize the remaining potential of the aging format. If it were an absolute requirement, we'd probably be seeing some companies saying "We don't want to use that format, if you won't let us, we won't put our game on your system". The format as a gaming medium has been really well received if you were to ask me, and by all means, it was a total shot in the dark if it were to succeed at the start, it drove up the price of the PS3, and was by far the most expensive High Def format compared to HDDVD. In the end, in races like these, the ultimate deciding factor is market share, and in that respect, the Wii will be Nintendo's first console victory in over a decade. For the record though, I did not mean to imply a negative there, obviously a company like Nintendo is not in a position where they can freely let money go, they aren't at all connected to one, or several profitable industries like Microsoft and Sony are so risk taking certainly isn't an idea to take lightly. Example here being that if Nintendo sold the Cube at a loss, I doubt that they'd still be around today as a hardware maker.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
