PS3 sucks, XBox 360 sucks, Revolution sucks

[lazyfatbum]

Welcome to the non-partisan thread where no one likes anything and we live inside the thought of being shallow nonsequencial douches and we try to make a statement by being irregular and withoiyt personality

on a side note, vodka is made out of some kind of orange i think an horse dck is just impossible. i mean reay, who can actually\ say that hey enjoy such a thing except other horses or black people

completely factual

[Great Rumbler]

Geometry Wars is fun.

[Dark Jaguar]

Functionally, it would be nice to have standardized console regulations, so that all games are playable on everyone's consoles, and the only real difference will be branding. Nintendo's innovative additions would be usable on whatever, and in the end I would simply buy whatever was most affordable with an acceptable durability.

[lazyfatbum]

Why dont you just wear a big fat red commie sticker on your forehead that says "VOTE FOR STALLIN" you comunist ball sack.

comunist... ball.... something funy...

vodka is expensive :/

[The Former DMiller]

Yeah, and it goes bad if you let it sit out.

[EdenMaster]

Yeah, and it goes bad if you let it sit out.

:D

[Dark Jaguar]

ALL HAIL STANDARDIZATION!

[Smoke]

Functionally, it would be nice to have standardized console regulations, so that all games are playable on everyone's consoles, and the only real difference will be branding. Nintendo's innovative additions would be usable on whatever, and in the end I would simply buy whatever was most affordable with an acceptable durability.

If that were true than I seriously doubt there would be a Nintendo Revolution. If Nintendo's games relied upon an add-on that you had to buy separately it most likely would not succeed.

I'm looking forward to the Revolution more than the other systems. Two reasons:

1. It's something new. Not just the same thing as last gen with prettier graphics.
2. It's Nintendo.

I don't hate the other systems though. There's a difference between having a preference, a favorite and being a fanboy.

[lazyfatbum]

You're obviously a fanboy for not enjoying all of the systems equally and having a preference over other systems. that's something a person like Paco would say, who has an obvious bias towards 360 and all things MS. I cant stand the mentality of 'If you have a favorite, you're a biased fanboy'. It makes no sense. People cant seem to understand the concept of judgement, having a devotion to Nintendo doesn't mean I wont also fall in love with Capcom, Konami, Square, etc. Shadow of the Collosus, ICO (art-as-games) or anything else that grabs my interest.

What's really retarded is a sony fanboy; to have a preference for a system or company just because of a handful of exclusive 3rd party games. Like Rtan defending Sony, the company, saying that they're better than Nintendo/MS etc becase you can only get Silent Hill on the Playstation systems. But because it's a third party, that could change at any time.

At least MS has some form of internal games division (though it hasn't been really fruitful yet) and strong second parties like Bungie and Rare... though Rare and to an extent Bungie has beeen questioned lately in terms of their abilities. Sony litteraly has nothing but bad hardware and a brand name that attracted massive amounts of third parties.

People talk about how Nintendo should merge with Sony, but what does sony have to offer Nintendo? Anything at all? More office space? Or what about MS, should Nintendo merge with them? can you honestly say that there's a game on XBox or 360 that is actually worth buying the system for? The exclusives are available on PC or released on other systems a year later and everything else is the same 3rd party software available everywhere else (though Nintendo is practically dead in that department with GC especially by EA and Ubisoft and even better companies like Konami) and in both cases, Sony's hardware is legendary regarding it's shit design and MS can only release systems that make them lose money. So when people say they're a fan of MS or Sony, they're litteraly saying they're a fan of their respective hardware. if you're not a developer, what does being a fan of hardware get you?

Nintendo is the only company out there that makes hardware and has multiple first and second parties around the world, no one can compete in that department with Nintendo, they're bigger than EA, bigger than EA and Ubisoft and Rare and Konami and Square-Enix combined and they consecutively pump out AAA titles like it's nobody's business, titles that fall on deaf ears because of a mass-interest in a brand name. It dumbfounds me. from a business perspective, there's no reason for Nintendo not be number 1, but even as we approach the 5th Nintendo home console there's still alot to be said about Truth in Advertizing, in that it's true that the better your ad-campaign the more you will sell.

And that's what everything is reduced to, that's what Nintendo is looking at, that making the best hardware, games, etc mean nothing to the mass market, that it's really all about who has the best commercials and appeal among young adults and children who are desperate to stay away from anything not immeadiately identified as EXTREME. Sony is now being taken to court over an ad placed in London subways telling people to 'Take a running jump' on to the tracks, or asking people to view porn on the PSP. Talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel. But the saddest part is that this is exactly how sony dominates the entire industry, save handhelds. Because sony appeals to the children or simple minded who are looking for a good S&M session with their inability to cope with adult hood. if this keeps up, i wouldn't be surprised to see Nike release a handheld sponsored by Michael Jordan's pit sweat or a home console produced by MTV called the 'Fuck Your Parents With RAP Pornotainment Sytem' and dont be surprised when it actually gives Sony, MS and Nintendo stiff competition especially with it's three launch titles: 'Xtreme Dick Measuring', 'Gay Basher: Mutiny on the Fag' and the Japanese release of 'Let's Prostitute! No Dentsu Love & Murder' which is the first game who's main character is an STD.

i cant fucking wait.

[lazyfatbum]

smoke that avatar is beyond words.

[Dark Jaguar]

If that were true than I seriously doubt there would be a Nintendo Revolution. If Nintendo's games relied upon an add-on that you had to buy separately it most likely would not succeed.

I'm looking forward to the Revolution more than the other systems. Two reasons:

1. It's something new. Not just the same thing as last gen with prettier graphics.
2. It's Nintendo.

I don't hate the other systems though. There's a difference between having a preference, a favorite and being a fanboy.

You may be misunderstanding me. What I'm suggesting is basically a standardized console, something with the same basic architecture and abilities, so that all games can be played on all systems. The add-ons I'm talking about would be basically bongo drums and special controllers. A well designed standardized system would have a massive storage built right into it (online capabilities are built into every system as standard now, finally, or at least when the Rev and the PS3 come out that'll be the case).

[Great Rumbler]

Have a standardized console sounds like a cool idea, but it would breed mediocrity since there would be no competition in the market. And the system would likely be sold at a profit, whereas most today are not because of the need to compete against two other viable consoles.

[Dark Jaguar]

Look at the PC and tell me it would breed mediocrity.

Standardization where the standards are "open" result in constantly improved standards as time goes on.

Examples include the ENTIRE PC market, the wide Linux community, and well, pretty much every other standard there is.

There would always be a drive for someone to come up with a new standard to compete with the existing standards, which happens pretty often, and then when accepted it is the new standard.

Standardization leads to good things.

[Great Rumbler]

Examples include the ENTIRE PC market, the wide Linux community, and well, pretty much every other standard there is.

PC competes against MAC, Linux competes against Windows/Unix. There's nothing standardized about that other than the fact that PCs and Windows are more popular and get more support.

[lazyfatbum]

*looks at a PC*

Yup, breeding mediocrity.

there's nothing standardized about PC's, each one is basically it's own stand-alone product of which you will have to look out for software that exceeds the abilities of the PC, which puts you in a specific market that is catered to. There are nine trillion companies that build specific computers, fully custom for whatever your needs are, there's nothing standard about that.

A video game console is a standardized platform to which developers can work in to, improving with each project as they become more familiar with the hardware. A PC is not, at all. Just as you can get a PC from gateway or Dell, with parts from the local store, by a specific company when there are 20 or more companies who make the same part, home consoles also offer this choice. There are reasons you may want a dell computer over a gateway, etc. You may want a PS3 for Warhawk 2 and Silent Hill 5 but you may want a Revolution for it's intuitive control setup and flagship titles or, you may want a 360 so you can fully integrate your PC and TV in to one central hub. each company offers a different flavor that is trying to appeal to specific markets, a side from the market as a whole.

Standardization is stagnant and dull, it's the essense of people having to go years with Windows 95 with its constant problems only to spennd money on a slight update with all new problems. Stardization only works in our benefit if it can be improved upon by companies in direct competition, ie: rumble paks, analog controllers, etc. or even artistically or mechanically, building the better genre, etc. But that's only possible because of competition, remove that factor and you enter stagnation. no company would ever will to achieve a massive standardization, unless, of course, you're talking about media formats and how companies can get their product in to your home. But even that leads to companies lured in to stagnation, then trying to break the mold and re-evaluate the design, blue ray and HD-DVD anyone?

[Dark Jaguar]

PCs aren't very well standardized, but there are some standards they have to match. There are a million PC clones, but if they were all truly different, software could ONLY work on one machine and none of the others. Standardization can lead to some outdated architecture, that's a problem that is dealt with over time. For example, it has taken a long time for PCs to move to something other than the old BIOS standard, but they are. PCs are a better example of standardization than one may realize. That's why I can play all my computer games on my computer even though I have much different hardware than a lot of them may have been designed for. DirectX is another example of a standard.

Standardization does not mean "doesn't change". It just means when someone makes something, they make it so it conforms with a standard set. This standard set is upgraded over time.

The best hands to place a standard in are the open community. It is never good if a standard is left in the hands of one company. So, for example, the DirectX standard may eventually be replaced with something more "open". The idea of an open standard is it is upgraded by consensus among a lot of people highly involved in it, rather than just at the deem of a single owner.

If all consoles met a standard, the standard would likely be a lot stricter than the current accepted PC standard, but the idea is simply that any time the standard was to be updated, it would be by consensus of the companies involved. The market would be clamoring for something more, and it would be in all the companies involved in deciding the standard's interests to update the standard.

[Great Rumbler]

You can't play all your computers games on your MAC though. You have to purchase a different set of games, or set up some elaborate system to trick your MAC into the playing the games.

PC:MAC::GC:Xbox

More or less. Not to mention that older PC games don't always work on the new PC games or visa versa, among other compability issues including sound drivers and videocards.

[Smoke]

smoke that avatar is beyond words.

Doesn't he just radiate confidence and raw sexuality?

[Great Rumbler]

Freddie.

[Paco]

You're obviously a fanboy for not enjoying all of the systems equally and having a preference over other systems. that's something a person like Paco would say, who has an obvious bias towards 360 and all things MS. I cant stand the mentality of 'If you have a favorite, you're a biased fanboy'. It makes no sense. People cant seem to understand the concept of judgement, having a devotion to Nintendo doesn't mean I wont also fall in love with Capcom, Konami, Square, etc. Shadow of the Collosus, ICO (art-as-games) or anything else that grabs my interest.

What's really retarded is a sony fanboy; to have a preference for a system or company just because of a handful of exclusive 3rd party games. Like Rtan defending Sony, the company, saying that they're better than Nintendo/MS etc becase you can only get Silent Hill on the Playstation systems. But because it's a third party, that could change at any time.

At least MS has some form of internal games division (though it hasn't been really fruitful yet) and strong second parties like Bungie and Rare... though Rare and to an extent Bungie has beeen questioned lately in terms of their abilities. Sony litteraly has nothing but bad hardware and a brand name that attracted massive amounts of third parties.

People talk about how Nintendo should merge with Sony, but what does sony have to offer Nintendo? Anything at all? More office space? Or what about MS, should Nintendo merge with them? can you honestly say that there's a game on XBox or 360 that is actually worth buying the system for? The exclusives are available on PC or released on other systems a year later and everything else is the same 3rd party software available everywhere else (though Nintendo is practically dead in that department with GC especially by EA and Ubisoft and even better companies like Konami) and in both cases, Sony's hardware is legendary regarding it's shit design and MS can only release systems that make them lose money. So when people say they're a fan of MS or Sony, they're litteraly saying they're a fan of their respective hardware. if you're not a developer, what does being a fan of hardware get you?

Nintendo is the only company out there that makes hardware and has multiple first and second parties around the world, no one can compete in that department with Nintendo, they're bigger than EA, bigger than EA and Ubisoft and Rare and Konami and Square-Enix combined and they consecutively pump out AAA titles like it's nobody's business, titles that fall on deaf ears because of a mass-interest in a brand name. It dumbfounds me. from a business perspective, there's no reason for Nintendo not be number 1, but even as we approach the 5th Nintendo home console there's still alot to be said about Truth in Advertizing, in that it's true that the better your ad-campaign the more you will sell.

And that's what everything is reduced to, that's what Nintendo is looking at, that making the best hardware, games, etc mean nothing to the mass market, that it's really all about who has the best commercials and appeal among young adults and children who are desperate to stay away from anything not immeadiately identified as EXTREME. Sony is now being taken to court over an ad placed in London subways telling people to 'Take a running jump' on to the tracks, or asking people to view porn on the PSP. Talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel. But the saddest part is that this is exactly how sony dominates the entire industry, save handhelds. Because sony appeals to the children or simple minded who are looking for a good S&M session with their inability to cope with adult hood. if this keeps up, i wouldn't be surprised to see Nike release a handheld sponsored by Michael Jordan's pit sweat or a home console produced by MTV called the 'Fuck Your Parents With RAP Pornotainment Sytem' and dont be surprised when it actually gives Sony, MS and Nintendo stiff competition especially with it's three launch titles: 'Xtreme Dick Measuring', 'Gay Basher: Mutiny on the Fag' and the Japanese release of 'Let's Prostitute! No Dentsu Love & Murder' which is the first game who's main character is an STD.

i cant fucking wait.

It's not that you had a preferrence, it's that you repeatedly slammed Microsoft and Sony multiple times without knowledge of the facts while blowing sunshine up everyone's ass about Nintendo. You always manage to put a positive spin on anything remotely negative about Nintendo, and actually argue it until it turns out to be the best scenario for Nintendo.

I brought up facts about the Gamecube being slighlty less powerful than the Xbox and you denied it (it's fact). I say that Nintendo continues to lose ground in the console race, you tell me that I'm wrong then turn around and try to get at me by insulting Microsoft (as if I really care). I say that Microsoft sold more Xbox consoles than Nintendo did with their Gamecube and you just flat out say "wrong" when it's fact as well.

You are a fanboy, and you know what? It's okay. I really don't care. It's not as if your word has any value or authority when it comes to the subject of video games. You're longwinded posts are unnecessary and often trite.

Having said that, I think you've come a long way in the past months. I would post something non-Nintendo and you replied without resorting to an insult or mockery of any kind. Even this post, after your shot at me, is more than valid and I'm interested to jump in contribute...

[Paco]

What's really retarded is a sony fanboy; to have a preference for a system or company just because of a handful of exclusive 3rd party games. Like Rtan defending Sony, the company, saying that they're better than Nintendo/MS etc becase you can only get Silent Hill on the Playstation systems. But because it's a third party, that could change at any time.

At least MS has some form of internal games division (though it hasn't been really fruitful yet) and strong second parties like Bungie and Rare... though Rare and to an extent Bungie has beeen questioned lately in terms of their abilities. Sony litteraly has nothing but bad hardware and a brand name that attracted massive amounts of third parties.

Sony has Naughty Dog as a spectacular first party developer. In all seriousness, as the PS2/Xbox/GC generation winds down, Jak & Daxter: The Precursor Legacy is still my number one title. Jak II was a little too difficult at times to be entirely enjoyable, but the third game was great. Polyphony and their multimillion selling Gran Turismo franchise (the entire series has sold over 45 million) you won't find anywhere else.

Sony has strong ties with some developers, and because of that you won't see some games on any other system. Insomniac is a second party developer but they seem to enjoy much success on the Playstation so I don't see a reason for them to leave. Sony invested in SquareEnix to pull them out of the rut they were in years ago so I don't see them going anywhere. The Playstation has become the premier destination of RPGs, action, and racing games. If you're a fan of either genre then it's a no brainer as to what system to invest in.

Microsoft has less of a case here, but that is definitely changing. Bungie created two of the biggest games of this past generation, they have been validated as a valuable developer and they're in Microsoft's corner. Rare, imo, still has yet to prove themselves as worth that 300 million (was it more?) investment. As a Rare fan for many years, I have faith in them. It's not as if Kameo and PDZ were bad games in any way, they are great games. Just not excellent and groundbreaking like we were used to back in the 90's. They also have FASA, an internal team that created Forza, that is widely regarded as Gran Turismo's equal.

Microsoft's second-party relations have become very strong. There are a number of exclusive third-party games on the way...though it remains to be seen how good they turn out.

Microsoft has also created an unequaled online service. I know people who love it and are hoping that Sony and Nintendo step up with something as great and feature rich.

People talk about how Nintendo should merge with Sony, but what does sony have to offer Nintendo? Anything at all? More office space? Or what about MS, should Nintendo merge with them? can you honestly say that there's a game on XBox or 360 that is actually worth buying the system for? The exclusives are available on PC or released on other systems a year later and everything else is the same 3rd party software available everywhere else (though Nintendo is practically dead in that department with GC especially by EA and Ubisoft and even better companies like Konami) and in both cases, Sony's hardware is legendary regarding it's shit design and MS can only release systems that make them lose money. So when people say they're a fan of MS or Sony, they're litteraly saying they're a fan of their respective hardware. if you're not a developer, what does being a fan of hardware get you?

There are people who just don't care for PC gaming. I'm one of them. If there's a game on the PC I want to play then I look for the console version. If there is no console version then I don't play it. Simple.

Halo, Chronicles of Riddick, Halo 2, Jade Empire, and Ninja Gaiden were more than enough reason to keep my Xbox around.

Also, if you enjoy the likes of EA, Ubisoft, or some other third party developer then the last place you want to look is Nintendo.

Microsoft will make money with the 360. The hardware is all theirs, and annual cost-reductions are expected.

Nintendo is the only company out there that makes hardware and has multiple first and second parties around the world, no one can compete in that department with Nintendo, they're bigger than EA, bigger than EA and Ubisoft and Rare and Konami and Square-Enix combined and they consecutively pump out AAA titles like it's nobody's business, titles that fall on deaf ears because of a mass-interest in a brand name. It dumbfounds me. from a business perspective, there's no reason for Nintendo not be number 1, but even as we approach the 5th Nintendo home console there's still alot to be said about Truth in Advertizing, in that it's true that the better your ad-campaign the more you will sell.

Nintendo doesn't release enough titles that I'm intersted in. Mario Sunshine, Wind Waker, Metroid Prime...I was all over those. I could not care less about Mario Party, Mario Strikers, Mario Tennis, Pokemon, and all the other games that make up the majority of their regular releases.

If I haven't cared for Mario, Donkey Kong, or Pokemon in the past then what does Nintendo offer? Variety is what got Sony where they are today. The third parties are important, and so is a healthy lineup of exclusive games. Sony has the largest third party support, and depending who you talk to they have a [more than] respectable roster of exclusives.

And that's what everything is reduced to, that's what Nintendo is looking at, that making the best hardware, games, etc mean nothing to the mass market, that it's really all about who has the best commercials and appeal among young adults and children who are desperate to stay away from anything not immeadiately identified as EXTREME. Sony is now being taken to court over an ad placed in London subways telling people to 'Take a running jump' on to the tracks, or asking people to view porn on the PSP. Talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel. But the saddest part is that this is exactly how sony dominates the entire industry, save handhelds. Because sony appeals to the children or simple minded who are looking for a good S&M session with their inability to cope with adult hood. if this keeps up, i wouldn't be surprised to see Nike release a handheld sponsored by Michael Jordan's pit sweat or a home console produced by MTV called the 'Fuck Your Parents With RAP Pornotainment Sytem' and dont be surprised when it actually gives Sony, MS and Nintendo stiff competition especially with it's three launch titles: 'Xtreme Dick Measuring', 'Gay Basher: Mutiny on the Fag' and the Japanese release of 'Let's Prostitute! No Dentsu Love & Murder' which is the first game who's main character is an STD.

i cant fucking wait.

No. The Playstation consoles offer the greatest variety of gaming in the industry.

[Great Rumbler]

Sony made ICO and Shadow of the Colossus and that definitely counts for something.

[A Black Falcon]

The Playstation has become the premier destination of RPGs, action, and racing games. If you're a fan of either genre then it's a no brainer as to what system to invest in.

Racing games no, those others maybe... but racing games? Eh, the N64 beats the PS1 on racing games no question, for one thing...

Sony has Naughty Dog as a spectacular first party developer. In all seriousness, as the PS2/Xbox/GC generation winds down, Jak & Daxter: The Precursor Legacy is still my number one title. Jak II was a little too difficult at times to be entirely enjoyable, but the third game was great. Polyphony and their multimillion selling Gran Turismo franchise (the entire series has sold over 45 million) you won't find anywhere else.

Sony has strong ties with some developers, and because of that you won't see some games on any other system. Insomniac is a second party developer but they seem to enjoy much success on the Playstation so I don't see a reason for them to leave. Sony invested in SquareEnix to pull them out of the rut they were in years ago so I don't see them going anywhere. The Playstation has become the premier destination of RPGs, action, and racing games. If you're a fan of either genre then it's a no brainer as to what system to invest in.

In volume, Sony and Microsoft have very similar ratios of first to third party sales, while Nintendo has much, much higher first-party sales. As a result, I can't see making a clear distinction between Sony and MS on this matter like Lazy does -- MS is trying to copy the Sony formula, not change it.

Microsoft has also created an unequaled online service. I know people who love it and are hoping that Sony and Nintendo step up with something as great and feature rich.

This is, by far, Microsoft's greatest success with the Xbox and is the most important thing that they are great to be leading the industry to change. Nintendo's old-fashioned internet scepticism, which still shows itsself strongly with things like their ridiculous and almost unusably restrictive online service on the DS, has been and will continue to look increasingly ridiculous over time... Sony has a clue and is trying, but has no coherent strategy, it seems. We'll see if the rumors about Sony's Live-clone are true, but I doubt Sony can pull off something like that.

Of course Nintendo is great in other ways, and has by far the best single-console multiplayer, but still, it's a significant market that Nintendo has so far utterly failed to adaquately address. (and I know, you console gamers haven't played online games, and that lack of knowledge about what a good online service is is part of why Nintendo hasn't been completely laughed at for how stupid DS online is...)

In the past I would have said "hopefully Nintendo is using this as a learning experience and will get better later", but based on their statements I see no sign of that happening.

If I haven't cared for Mario, Donkey Kong, or Pokemon in the past then what does Nintendo offer? Variety is what got Sony where they are today. The third parties are important, and so is a healthy lineup of exclusive games. Sony has the largest third party support, and depending who you talk to they have a [more than] respectable roster of exclusives.

Those are broad liscences, and Nintendo puts games with the liscences in all kinds of genres, so that's just not true. Nintendo produces games with a massive amount of variety, far, far more than anything Sony or MS would even THINK of releasing... Sony has third party "variety", but that's just variety of scale.

Yeah, yeah, that's something too, but Nintendo consoles have more than enough games to keep anyone busy, so I don't see the problem. Playstation has MORE, but if you've got plenty, why should you really care?

There are people who just don't care for PC gaming. I'm one of them. If there's a game on the PC I want to play then I look for the console version. If there is no console version then I don't play it. Simple.

Games on both PC and consoles are better on PC every single time that they put any effort into it at all.

[Paco]

Racing games no, those others maybe... but racing games? Eh, the N64 beats the PS1 on racing games no question, for one thing...

One game, Gran Turismo. It's THE racing game to beat. It's also home to some decent and respectable arcade racing titles.

I forgot about fighting games. Tekken and Soul Calibur are excellent games, and there are many other fighting games to appeal to anyone's taste. As I've said before, variety is key here.

In volume, Sony and Microsoft have very similar ratios of first to third party sales, while Nintendo has much, much higher first-party sales. As a result, I can't see making a clear distinction between Sony and MS on this matter like Lazy does -- MS is trying to copy the Sony formula, not change it.

True.

Those are broad liscences, and Nintendo puts games with the liscences in all kinds of genres, so that's just not true. Nintendo produces games with a massive amount of variety, far, far more than anything Sony or MS would even THINK of releasing... Sony has third party "variety", but that's just variety of scale.

Here's what I'm saying. If I don't like Mario or have never cared for Mario then why would I give Mario Strikers, Mario Tennis, Mario Party, etc. any consideration?

Variety of scale > variety then. What was it, 100+ PS2s to 20 million GCs?

Yeah, yeah, that's something too, but Nintendo consoles have more than enough games to keep anyone busy, so I don't see the problem. Playstation has MORE, but if you've got plenty, why should you really care?

I disagree. As I said before, if I don't like the Mario or Pokemon flavor then the lineup suddenly becomes less attractive.

Games on both PC and consoles are better on PC every single time that they put any effort into it at all.

That may be but I really don't give a fuck. I don't like the idea of having to upgrade graphic cards, playing with a keyboard, mouse, having to check if my system has the required or recommended specs. It's just not for me.

Chronicles of Riddick, Fable, Halo, and Half-Life were superbly done on the Xbox.

[Great Rumbler]

No racing game of the current era is better than Burnout 3. None. F-Zero GX does come pretty close though.

[A Black Falcon]

I'd forgotten how annoying it is to talk to Sony fans...

One game, Gran Turismo. It's THE racing game to beat. It's also home to some decent and respectable arcade racing titles.

I forgot about fighting games. Tekken and Soul Calibur are excellent games, and there are many other fighting games to appeal to anyone's taste. As I've said before, variety is key here.

Sim-racers okay, though the N64 has some solid ones too (some F1 games, MRC, etc), perhaps... but arcade racing? No way! And I don't find sim racers particularly fun, so... yeah, no contest at all. I've got 13 N64 racing games, and there are easily that many more again games that I could also get. PSX? It's got volume, but as usual, the quality is lower... does the PSX have anything to match Rush 2049 or F-Zero X? No? And what about Wipeout? The PSX may have 3 to the N64's 1, but the N64 one is the only one with a four player mode, and only Wipeout 3 also has analog controls (they make such a huge difference in these games...)... Not to mention Rush 2, the Cruis'n games, Beetle Adventure Racing, Extreme-G 1 and 2, etc. PSX? Um... Rollcage is good, though both games are also on PC and are as usual much improved on that platform (where I have Rollcage Stage II... great game...). :) Rush 1 for PSX is horrible. Same for Hydro Thunder; both games are great on N64. Other PSX arcade racers... what would you mention? Jet-Moto or something? Yeah right... :)

Fighting games? Yeah, Sony beats Nintendo, but the X-Box's linup is, I'd say, just as good as the PS2's. Lots of great stuff there...

Here's what I'm saying. If I don't like Mario or have never cared for Mario then why would I give Mario Strikers, Mario Tennis, Mario Party, etc. any consideration?

Variety of scale > variety then. What was it, 100+ PS2s to 20 million GCs?

Umm... perhaps because a real gamer can look beyond shallow judgements such as those and actually see a good game when they play one, perhaps?

... most obvious counter-argument ever...

I don't really like Pokemon, but once i played Tetris Attack and learned how great Panel de Pon is, I knew I was going to get Pokemon Puzzle League, and it was worth it, Pokemons or no... a good game is a good game.

Also, an unique or innovative game is still unique if it uses a preexisting universe of characters. Super Mario Kart is the perfect example of that, but I could also mention Yoshi Touch 'n Go, Kirby Tilt 'n' Tumble, etc... Sony and MS simply do not take chances with game design like Nintendo does. Some other third parties do, so PS2 and Xbox get a few titles that are innovative in a Nintendo-like way (because admittedly Nintendo does not innovate in every way, but just in ones characteristic to the way they make games), but they aren't first party, and in many cases, particularly with Sony, convincing Sony to let you release your game in the the US might get very, very hard... just ask Working Designs about that one. Oh right, Sony of America killed them. Right. (not an exaggeration.)

I disagree. As I said before, if I don't like the Mario or Pokemon flavor then the lineup suddenly becomes less attractive.

Even given that fact, this is still quite simply not true. For instance... I have 45 N64 games and 39 GC games. Total number of Pokemon titles: 1, the aforementioned PPL. Total number of Mario titles: 3: Mario 64, Mario Kart 64, and Mario Sunshine. (okay, there are a few more if you count Yoshi's Story, SSB, SSB:M, and Pac-Man vs. (with Mario's voice...) (WarioWare is different... the Wario series isn't as closely connected to the main Mario one as the Yoshi games are, for instance.), but those are all completely different games that just happen to share some characters, so it wouldn't make a lot of sense to do that... (particularly for ones that don't have Mario in them at all like WarioWare, Wario World, or Yoshi's Story, and in SSB who you use is up to you...)

That is, there are numerous other titles out there if you look for them. Stop using silly excuses.

That may be but I really don't give a fuck. I don't like the idea of having to upgrade graphic cards, playing with a keyboard, mouse, having to check if my system has the required or recommended specs. It's just not for me.

People who dislike PC games... so sad... :(

[Paco]

Sim-racers okay, though the N64 has some solid ones too (some F1 games, MRC, etc), perhaps... but arcade racing? No way! And I don't find sim racers particularly fun, so... yeah, no contest at all. I've got 13 N64 racing games, and there are easily that many more again games that I could also get. PSX? It's got volume, but as usual, the quality is lower... does the PSX have anything to match Rush 2049 or F-Zero X? No? And what about Wipeout? The PSX may have 3 to the N64's 1, but the N64 one is the only one with a four player mode, and only Wipeout 3 also has analog controls (they make such a huge difference in these games...)... Not to mention Rush 2, the Cruis'n games, Beetle Adventure Racing, Extreme-G 1 and 2, etc. PSX? Um... Rollcage is good, though both games are also on PC and are as usual much improved on that platform (where I have Rollcage Stage II... great game...). :) Rush 1 for PSX is horrible. Same for Hydro Thunder; both games are great on N64. Other PSX arcade racers... what would you mention? Jet-Moto or something? Yeah right... :)

I'll give you the PSX vs. N64 but I was really talking about overall (including PSX/PS2 and N64/GC). Sony has more.

WipeOut on the N64 is my favorite of the entire series, and I've played them all. Doesn't mean the others aren't any good though. I'd rather play several great titles over the span of a console than one or two per generation.

I played Hydro Thunder on the DC. I couldn't stomach the PSX and N64 versions after I played it on the DC.

Hey, I liked Jet Moto! My friend and I actually brought it up in conversation the other day, wondering if they'd ever make another one.

Fighting games? Yeah, Sony beats Nintendo, but the X-Box's linup is, I'd say, just as good as the PS2's. Lots of great stuff there...

You're forgetting the arguement. We're (or maybe it's just me) discussing why Nintendo isn't number one on the home console front.

Umm... perhaps because a real gamer can look beyond shallow judgements such as those and actually see a good game when they play one, perhaps?

Pfft. Stop with the 'real gamer' crap. Anyone who plays and likes games is a real gamer. Their preferences are their own.

Not everyone enjoys Mario or his friends. So why would they want to play a lineup of games featuring nothing but Mario characters? Whatever the reasons, they just don't care about Mario and don't pay attention to anything he's in.

I don't really like Pokemon, but once i played Tetris Attack and learned how great Panel de Pon is, I knew I was going to get Pokemon Puzzle League, and it was worth it, Pokemons or no... a good game is a good game.

Again, it features pokemon. Someone who's already decided they don't like Pokemon might not ever want to play anything that has anything to do with Pokemon.

Also, an unique or innovative game is still unique if it uses a preexisting universe of characters.

I'm not arguing that. It's just that someone who doesn't appreciate Nintendo's roster of characters might not ever pay attention to any game featuring those characters.

Even given that fact, this is still quite simply not true. For instance... I have 45 N64 games and 39 GC games. Total number of Pokemon titles: 1, the aforementioned PPL. Total number of Mario titles: 3: Mario 64, Mario Kart 64, and Mario Sunshine. (okay, there are a few more if you count Yoshi's Story, SSB, SSB:M, and Pac-Man vs. (with Mario's voice...) (WarioWare is different... the Wario series isn't as closely connected to the main Mario one as the Yoshi games are, for instance.), but those are all completely different games that just happen to share some characters, so it wouldn't make a lot of sense to do that... (particularly for ones that don't have Mario in them at all like WarioWare, Wario World, or Yoshi's Story, and in SSB who you use is up to you...)

If I don't like Nintendo's flavor of games then that's that. Believe it or not, some people don't. I have a cousin who doesn't like Mario Kart. The same can be said for Capcom, Rare, Konami, Team Ninja, or whoever. Respectively, they have highly acclaimed and respected games, but you can't make someone like a game they don't like, or a developer they just don't like.

Myself? I never got along with Capcom or Konami on my SNES, N64, or DC. I stopped looking a long time ago because there were plenty of other options available.

At one time I was all about Crash Bandicoot, but I grew tired of him and now I don't care what's going on with any of his games.

Another example is Square. Some people just don't like Square games, and others think they're the greatest RPG developers on the planet. Again, depends who you talk to.

That is, there are numerous other titles out there if you look for them. Stop using silly excuses.

Well, you only have a GC and a PC if I remember correctly. Of course you're going to look harder for more games. Myself, I have an Xbox, PS2, and GC. I buy the games that grab my attention and really don't go looking for anything more. There's plenty to play when you have three systems.

People who dislike PC games... so sad... :(

Don't feel sorry for me. As I said, I don't give a shit. I'm more than content with my consoles.

[Great Rumbler]

I have all three consoles and still have about 30 GC games, give or take. Converserly, I only have about MAYBE a dozen Xbox games, could be a bit less than that.

[A Black Falcon]

Sim-racers okay, though the N64 has some solid ones too (some F1 games, MRC, etc), perhaps... but arcade racing? No way! And I don't find sim racers particularly fun, so... yeah, no contest at all. I've got 13 N64 racing games, and there are easily that many more again games that I could also get. PSX? It's got volume, but as usual, the quality is lower... does the PSX have anything to match Rush 2049 or F-Zero X? No? And what about Wipeout? The PSX may have 3 to the N64's 1, but the N64 one is the only one with a four player mode, and only Wipeout 3 also has analog controls (they make such a huge difference in these games...)... Not to mention Rush 2, the Cruis'n games, Beetle Adventure Racing, Extreme-G 1 and 2, etc. PSX? Um... Rollcage is good, though both games are also on PC and are as usual much improved on that platform (where I have Rollcage Stage II... great game...). Rush 1 for PSX is horrible. Same for Hydro Thunder; both games are great on N64. Other PSX arcade racers... what would you mention? Jet-Moto or something? Yeah right...
I'll give you the PSX vs. N64 but I was really talking about overall (including PSX/PS2 and N64/GC). Sony has more.

WipeOut on the N64 is my favorite of the entire series, and I've played them all. Doesn't mean the others aren't any good though. I'd rather play several great titles over the span of a console than one or two per generation.

I played Hydro Thunder on the DC. I couldn't stomach the PSX and N64 versions after I played it on the DC.

Hey, I liked Jet Moto! My friend and I actually brought it up in conversation the other day, wondering if they'd ever make another one.

Not that Jet Moto is awful, but that it's no competition for the best of the N64's arcade racing game lineup.

Hydro Thunder... the N64 version is actually really good. First, it's the only one with a 3 or 4 player mode. Yeah, it's in-boat-view-only, but that's better than the 2-player-onlyness of the PSX or DC/PS2/Xbox/GC versions... and yeah, the graphics don't compare (I own it for N64, but have played the DC one a bit and the arcade version much more than that (truly awesome as an arcade game...)), but the gameplay is all there in the N64 port, and that's what counts. Really, it's a very impressive port.

Wipeout... since getting a PS1 I've found Wipeout 1 (overly difficult, the lose-all-speed-when-you-hit-walls mechanic is as horrible as I'd heard it was for years, but still Wipeout fun, and it has great graphics... and no multiplayer without system link, which no one has.) and Wipeout 3 (very good game... but the F-Zero-inspired boost-your-shields system was a mistake... and once I played this it became very clear which game exactly XG3 had cloned. Still good, Wipeout fun, but it does lose a bit of Wipeout's uniqueness... oh, and the new bike designs are mostly boring. And only 2 players.) Wipeout 64 is just plain and simple a great game. Still, they're all worth getting... though I should note that had I really wanted to I could have gotten Wipeout 1 and Wipeout XL for PC. :) The PSX versions are just much easier to find...

You're forgetting the arguement. We're (or maybe it's just me) discussing why Nintendo isn't number one on the home console front.

Ah, I didn't read it all, been away for most of the last week... :)

Fighting games are lacking badly on N64 and GC, but that's not why Nintendo is behind... that genre just isn't important enough (in marketing clout) for that, despite how much fun a good fighting game can be.

Again, it features pokemon. Someone who's already decided they don't like Pokemon might not ever want to play anything that has anything to do with Pokemon.

True, that's a game that most people probably ignored because it had Pokemon in it, I know I did... as I said, it wasn't until I played a different game in the series, non-Pokemon, until I decided to get it... but that's my fault, not Nintendo's. I certainly won't complain that they're trying to make their games sell better... I mean, which will sell more: unique game A, or unique game A with the Kirby name on it?

Yeah, the latter game will.

If I don't like Nintendo's flavor of games then that's that. Believe it or not, some people don't. I have a cousin who doesn't like Mario Kart. The same can be said for Capcom, Rare, Konami, Team Ninja, or whoever. Respectively, they have highly acclaimed and respected games, but you can't make someone like a game they don't like, or a developer they just don't like.

Myself? I never got along with Capcom or Konami on my SNES, N64, or DC. I stopped looking a long time ago because there were plenty of other options available.

At one time I was all about Crash Bandicoot, but I grew tired of him and now I don't care what's going on with any of his games.

Another example is Square. Some people just don't like Square games, and others think they're the greatest RPG developers on the planet. Again, depends who you talk to.

Way to write a long statement without taking obvious positions on anything... :)

Ie: Yes, sure, of course, but you're not really saying anything here. What are you suggesting Nintendo do? Change the way it makes games, a way that overall works pretty well? That wouldn't be smart... sure, they should try to attract a larger audience, but it's absolutely crucial to also hold on to what they have, and that requires plenty of classicly Nintendo games.

OH, and as for 'people who don't like Mario', Nintendo's solution in Japan is their DS Touch Generations lineup, of mostly productivity or small-game stuff aimed at adults. It's just too bad that some of the titles are untranslatable (English-Japanese dictionary and practice your kanji, for instance...) and most of the rest have just been dropped, but that's one problem Nintendo has: caring about Japan first, and the rest of the world maybe (ie if Nintendo truly wanted to do in the US as it has in Japan with the DS, they'd actually be making an effort to get more of those cross-generational titles out here. They aren't.)...

Well, you only have a GC and a PC if I remember correctly. Of course you're going to look harder for more games. Myself, I have an Xbox, PS2, and GC. I buy the games that grab my attention and really don't go looking for anything more. There's plenty to play when you have three systems.

PC since 1991, GB since 94, GBC in 98, N64 in 99, GC in 01, GBA in 03, SNES last summer, and then I bought a PS1 last December... check my gamelist, it's up to date...

I mention the old consoles because I've been buying more stuff for them than newer ones for some time now; note how I just bought the PS1 and SNES last year, yet have 14 and 26 games for them, respectively... and 21 of those 45 N64 games have been purchased since I got my Gamecube...

Yeah, I buy lots of older, cheaper games. :) For instance, so far during spring break, I've spent about $110 on games... and gotten a total of 24 games, plus a Super Game Boy. Though seven of those were PC CD titles I got for virtually nothing.

Don't feel sorry for me. As I said, I don't give a shit. I'm more than content with my consoles.

That's exactly the saddest part: that you do not understand...

But really, what's so horrible about PC games, other than the fact that there are so many great games on it? I own more PC games than games for all consoles combined for a reason, after all...

[Weltall]

But really, what's so horrible about PC games, other than the fact that there are so many great games on it?

Perhaps the fact that 90% of them fall into three major genres, to the exclusion of everything else?

I mean, how many RTS, FPS and MMORPGs can a person play? And most of what's left is console ports. Most of the PC games I play are console ports, played only because I like the higher-res.

Then there's the added factor of consoles get to be played in a soft chair on a large TV from a distance of several feet, instead of a chair on a small monitor 2 feet away.

[A Black Falcon]

Perhaps the fact that 90% of them fall into three major genres, to the exclusion of everything else?

I mean, how many RTS, FPS and MMORPGs can a person play? And most of what's left is console ports. Most of the PC games I play are console ports, played only because I like the higher-res.

Then there's the added factor of consoles get to be played in a soft chair on a large TV from a distance of several feet, instead of a chair on a small monitor 2 feet away.

The PC market has fallen far, hasn't it... that was not true five or eight years ago, but now... yeah, casual games (Sims, etc), MMORPGs, RTSes, and FPSes definitely dominate... I haven't bought many recent PC games at all. Of course, one big reason for that is that my computer is old and most of them won't run on it, because I've seen some I'd like to play... but even so, it is true that most of them are either console ports, MMORPGs, or RTSes... and I do have a good number of console ports among my PC collection, so they've never really been rare. Not that that's a bad thing though, and more than porting a game between other consoles is... it just gives you more ways to play a game...

But anyway, the PC used to also be very strong in graphic adventures, PC RPGs, vehicular simulations (mech sims (MechWarrior 2...), space sims (X-Wing, Freespace, etc), fighter jet sims (Falcon 4.0), racing sims (Papyrus games, for instance), etc...), wargames (traditional hex-based wargames, that is), a respectable number of arcadish racing games, sports games that were actually exclusive (other than stats-only sims, which still do exist), etc... almost all gone...

Oh, PC games aren't dying. Online PC gaming is as strong as ever, and digital distribution is rising strongly. I've put hundreds of hours into Guild Wars. The shareware and freeware markets provide some very interesting stuff. But still, the retail PC industry certainly isn't what it used to be, sadly. All I have to do to prove that fact is go look at my years of old PC Gamer magazines and see the gradual thinning of the average magazine size to prove that one... and note how, from looking in the store, it hasn't recovered in the years since I stopped subscribing.

[lazyfatbum]

haha Paco tried to form a cognetive opinion but ended up spewing more perfumed text farts. Smells like... splenetic subterfuge, with a hint of garlic or is it... is that fanaticism I smell? My eyes are tearing, and I suddenly have memories of indian food, so that must be fanaticism I'm smelling. Atleast I have the decency to cover my mouth when I let loose one of those bad boys, seriously Paco... manners at the table.

it is sad about PC games, but no one can compare with the level of customization and the level of 'western' development in the PC front. I personally dont enjoy MMORPG's but many millions of people do, and the PC is the only real place to get that, it has completely devoured that market whole and didnt leave any scraps for the home consoles. Unless you count lackluster stabs of the 'Morrowwind Lite' that XBox owners had to deal with. I mean if you're going to go Morrowwind, go for the full gambit of it.

[Paco]

I have all three consoles and still have about 30 GC games, give or take. Converserly, I only have about MAYBE a dozen Xbox games, could be a bit less than that.

I have about a dozen games on each console. My PS2 library is the only one I anticipate to grow before I sell it. I'm hanging on to my Xbox and GC in case something comes out of nowhere that I just have to have (I'll play Twilight Princess on my Revolution).

Fighting games are lacking badly on N64 and GC, but that's not why Nintendo is behind... that genre just isn't important enough (in marketing clout) for that, despite how much fun a good fighting game can be.

You missed the bigger point. It's that the GC is lacking a large selection in several genres. There just isn't enough to pick and choose from. Sure, there is a standout title or two to represent each genre but that just isn't enough if you want to appeal to the masses and their different (often times, questionable) tastes.

Ie: Yes, sure, of course, but you're not really saying anything here. What are you suggesting Nintendo do? Change the way it makes games, a way that overall works pretty well? That wouldn't be smart... sure, they should try to attract a larger audience, but it's absolutely crucial to also hold on to what they have, and that requires plenty of classicly Nintendo games.

No, they shouldn't change the way they make games. They should focus on keeping their fanbase satisfied, but broaden it with new development houses that don't think exactly like they do. Silicon Knights is a perfect example of a development house they should have kept around. From what I understand, they left because Nintendo wanted them to go the same route of making smaller, less complicated games. SK wanted to go the epic route. What's wrong with having both? Wouldn't people enjoy being able to choose from a quick pick up and play or a grand epic adventure?

That's exactly the saddest part: that you do not understand...

But really, what's so horrible about PC games, other than the fact that there are so many great games on it? I own more PC games than games for all consoles combined for a reason, after all...

Apparently you don't understand that I just don't care for it. I don't like sitting at a computer desk; I'd rather sit on the floor or couch in my living room.

I personally dont enjoy MMORPG's but many millions of people do, and the PC is the only real place to get that,

LOL. I suppose that depends how deep and customizable you want your MMORPG. Phantasy Star and Final Fantasy XI are perfect examples of MMORPGs that work on the console.

Like you, I don't care for them.

OH, and as for 'people who don't like Mario', Nintendo's solution in Japan is their DS Touch Generations lineup, of mostly productivity or small-game stuff aimed at adults. It's just too bad that some of the titles are untranslatable (English-Japanese dictionary and practice your kanji, for instance...) and most of the rest have just been dropped, but that's one problem Nintendo has: caring about Japan first, and the rest of the world maybe (ie if Nintendo truly wanted to do in the US as it has in Japan with the DS, they'd actually be making an effort to get more of those cross-generational titles out here. They aren't.)...

Yeah, I've noticed, and I'd like to see more. I'm really hoping that Nintendo was on the up and up when they said there will be new franchises on the Revolution.

[A Black Falcon]

You missed the bigger point. It's that the GC is lacking a large selection in several genres. There just isn't enough to pick and choose from. Sure, there is a standout title or two to represent each genre but that just isn't enough if you want to appeal to the masses and their different (often times, questionable) tastes.

I didn't miss that point, I disagreed about its importance... if you have options you can choose, you shouldn't be too unhappy about others you don't have... but anyway, the lack of all those games that are on the other consoles isn't the cause of lack of support for Nintendo, they're a symptom of it. The games come with the marketshare and the sales, after all... of course, reversing that trend is hard, but still, they are a symptom, not a cause.

No, they shouldn't change the way they make games. They should focus on keeping their fanbase satisfied, but broaden it with new development houses that don't think exactly like they do. Silicon Knights is a perfect example of a development house they should have kept around. From what I understand, they left because Nintendo wanted them to go the same route of making smaller, less complicated games. SK wanted to go the epic route. What's wrong with having both? Wouldn't people enjoy being able to choose from a quick pick up and play or a grand epic adventure?

Yeah, they definitely needed to make a bigger effort with the second parties... I don't understand why they dropped them all, but it certainly hasn't done any good for Nintendo. Losing Left Field, Rare, and Silicon Knights sure won't help anything... not to mention Factor 5, which was third party exclusive and now is developing for PS3... yeah, they expanded their first parties with NST's continuing growth and the development of Retro, but still... they needed those companies, to provide more games to attract Western gamers, but they didn't hold on to them.

However, I can see why they left: Nintendo has a course, and wants to stick to that, and that isn't really compatible with SK's cinematic focus or Factor 5's graphics-first one... it's too bad, and Nintendo should have tried harder, but from their perspective it probably just didn't seem like it'd be worth the effort. But when combined with everything else it does help promote that perception that they care about us a whole lot less than they care about Japanese consumers... which is too bad, because America is the world's biggest market, Europe's is growing, and Japan's is not.

Apparently you don't understand that I just don't care for it. I don't like sitting at a computer desk; I'd rather sit on the floor or couch in my living room.

The location played isn't important, the game itsself is...

LOL. I suppose that depends how deep and customizable you want your MMORPG. Phantasy Star and Final Fantasy XI are perfect examples of MMORPGs that work on the console.

Like you, I don't care for them.

PSO is not an MMORPG. It's an online RPG, but it has no persistent world and is not massively multiplayer, so it's not an MMORPG. Like how Diablo II or Guild Wars are popular online RPGs that are not MMORPGs (though those ones, unlike PSO, don't have monthly fees...). FFXI is, though, and it's a very typical one from what I've heard... MMORPGs are interesting. It's a whole genre designed not about fun-per-hour but about how many months they can drag out the play experience so that they can keep getting your money from you... not that they aren't addictive and fun, from what I've seen (from some WoW betas mainly, but also a few Ryzom tests; I also tried free Anarchy Online, but that one interested me much less...), but that that game design is kind of annoying... still, if I had the money (that is, to spend that much on just one game) I'd get WoW.

[Paco]

I didn't miss that point, I disagreed about its importance... if you have options you can choose, you shouldn't be too unhappy about others you don't have...

How is it that the console with the biggest selection isn't the most desirable?

How is it that the console with the least amount of options should be the console of choice?

The location played isn't important, the game itsself is...

In your opinion. Laying on the floor is much more valuable to me than whatever the PC can offer. That's my preference. Dislike or disagree, my preference doesn't change.

Nintendo has a course, and wants to stick to that,

This is their problem, imo. It's too narrow a course, imo. Why try to only redefine gaming? Why not include the option to play big and grandiose games as we're used to (and still like) AND give us new innovative titles to play in a unique way?

[A Black Falcon]

How is it that the console with the biggest selection isn't the most desirable?

How is it that the console with the least amount of options should be the console of choice?

Because of the games available... any one of the three platforms has plenty for anyone... but you choose one based on which exclusive titles you like best, obviously.

In your opinion. Laying on the floor is much more valuable to me than whatever the PC can offer. That's my preference. Dislike or disagree, my preference doesn't change.

You can say that, but it doesn't make it actually make one bit of sense. :)

This is their problem, imo. It's too narrow a course, imo. Why try to only redefine gaming? Why not include the option to play big and grandiose games as we're used to (and still like) AND give us new innovative titles to play in a unique way?

Or for a question from their side, why follow a path that is broken? Wouldn't it be muddying ones message and betraying your goal of change if you both say how things are so broken and need to change ... and make games that follow that exact broken formula? Yeah, it wouldn't make sense... and there IS a problem in gaming. Will Nintendo fix it? Um... not all at once, and I do hope that the Revolution's changed focus won't mean that we don't have as many great, classic Nintendo-style games... but it has the potential to do a lot of good. And Nintendo has been building relationships too; look at n-Space (Geist) and Kuju (Battalion Wars), for instance. And, of course, the GC's new focus on increased third-party relationships -- Capcom and Zelda, Sega and F-Zero, Namco and Star Fox...

[Weltall]

Have a standardized console sounds like a cool idea, but it would breed mediocrity since there would be no competition in the market. And the system would likely be sold at a profit, whereas most today are not because of the need to compete against two other viable consoles.

I want to go back and touch on this point, because I missed it earlier.

I very much disagree with this statement. I think having a single standard (even if a loose one) for consoles would benefit everyone.

First, consoles don't directly compete with each other. Usually, what sets them apart is details. X machine has more RAM than Y machine which has a stronger GPU than Z, blah blah blah. Yes, the Rev is going to introduce the first real innovation to console gaming in perhaps 25 years or so, but there will be problems to go with that. Popular games on PS3 and 360 will find the Revolution an unfriendly machine to be ported to. Also, while it's a terrific idea and I'm completely for it as a gamer, from a financial standpoint I'm not convinced it was the best move to make.

Innovation is the primary driving force behind the market, regardless of what the market is. People buy hybrid cars because they run more efficiently. People buy HDTV sets because with the correct signal they look significantly better than SDTV. Ditto DVD over VHS, and CD over Cassette. Check cards have almost totally replaced paper checks. Splenda is like Sweet and Low and Equal but it tastes far better and can be used to cook. Innovations that have been successful.

However, innovation is not a free ticket to success. Rememer SACD players from a few years ago? DiVX players? Laser Discs? Betamax? Electric cars? Not successes. In some cases, such as electric cars, the technology hadn't quite caught up to the concept. Now it has, and we have hybrids. In some cases, the technology was superior (beta, SACD), but there simply wasn't a market for it because the improvement wasn't vital enough. The market didn't NEED this kind of improvement, though an improvement it was.

This is a trap Nintendo falls into with some regularity. They are rampant innovators, and have struck gold as often as anyone. However, Nintendo also has a rap sheet of innovation gone wrong (E-Reader, Virtual Boy, Game Boy Micro, 64DD). In some cases, the technology was just irritating (Hello E-Reader). In others, just not ready (64DD, VB), and in others still, just plain unnecessary (Micro).

The Rev, I fear, will fall into the second category. It's a wonderful idea that far too many people are simply going to ignore because it's featured on the console that will undoubtedly be third place in market share. Save for a remarkably aggressive marketing and ad campaign from Nintendo (which I won't hold my breath for), the Rev controller and concept will languish on a machine that will have only minor 3rd party support and a lack of compatible software, rendering a great idea stillborn.

You see, as much as I love the idea, it's not a worldbreaker. It isn't going to revolutionize gaming. By virtue of its assured lack of exposure, it will be impossible for the machine to have an earthshattering impact. Nintendo fans will eat it up, and many casual observers will look at it fondly, but the gaming public in general are going to treat it only slightly better than the Cube got, and two years from now we'll be scratching our heads and wondering by.

If the concept behind the Revolution were applied to the industry as a whole, on a single type of machine, it would be possible for the Rev to be a real Revolution, thanks to the added exposure. Nintendo is a fountain of innovation, but sadly, their hardware is all too often where innovation goes to die because of their complete aloofness to the market they once dominated.

[Paco]

Because of the games available... any one of the three platforms has plenty for anyone... but you choose one based on which exclusive titles you like best, obviously.

You keep forgetting the bigger picture here. Why isn't the Gamecube number one. My answer is that it doesn't have as much variety and selection as the number one console does.

You can say that, but it doesn't make it actually make one bit of sense. :)

As if it needs to. Why would I make myself sit at a computer desk to play a game when I really don't feel like it?

Or for a question from their side, why follow a path that is broken? Wouldn't it be muddying ones message and betraying your goal of change if you both say how things are so broken and need to change ... and make games that follow that exact broken formula? Yeah, it wouldn't make sense... and there IS a problem in gaming. Will Nintendo fix it? Um... not all at once, and I do hope that the Revolution's changed focus won't mean that we don't have as many great, classic Nintendo-style games... but it has the potential to do a lot of good. And Nintendo has been building relationships too; look at n-Space (Geist) and Kuju (Battalion Wars), for instance. And, of course, the GC's new focus on increased third-party relationships -- Capcom and Zelda, Sega and F-Zero, Namco and Star Fox...

Problem. I haven't been sold on Nintendo's perspective that there's something wrong with gaming. I thorougly enjoyed this past generation.

The path isn't broken, it's just one Nintendo can't cut it on.

[lazyfatbum]

Paco there's a ton of developers complaining about lack of industry growth and lowered sales every year. less people play video games now then last year and the year before it based on that data. nintendo isn't the only one complaining. you, myself, and others on this board have been playing without a problem, but there are members here who have either slowed their hobby or completely dropped it, and you can see it in conversation, it's gettong harder to find people who play video games that are my age, or if they do they only play FPS's or MMORPG's the mainstream's crack and heroin respectively.

This is their problem, imo. It's too narrow a course, imo. Why try to only redefine gaming? Why not include the option to play big and grandiose games as we're used to (and still like) AND give us new innovative titles to play in a unique way?

yeah, Nintendo doesnt do that at all /sarcasm. And gee, i dunno, why would a company want to redefine gaming? Do you really want me to list out Nintendo's GC titles? and Leftfield, Rare and SK were not dropped because of ideals - their official statements (ones they actually gave to share holders) were that they either couldn't keep up with Nintendo's demand for more games and on time to fit a release schedule or the company was in turmoil for whatever reason. Leftfield released like two games over its lifespan and Excitebike was the only thing that made money, Rare had a massive swap in employees and was having a problem getting their content ready anywhere near the projected launch window which finally pissed off Nintendo when they released SFA, the first subpar Rare game... ever. Looking at their XBox and 360 and GBA titles, it's clear that they're having issues. Then of course SK.

Sk interview: We wannted to make bigger games and Nintendo doesn't want that.

Sk release to share holderers: as per our last meeting we are continuing with our drive towards other consoles to increase exposure and revenue.

if you do your homework you'll see that Nintendo and it's second/third parties have majorly huge games that were much larger than Eternal Darkness so people were left scratching their heads when they heard this news. but it was litteraly propoganda from SK's PR to get people angry at Nintendo and interested in SK's future titles, but it was SK themselves who broke from Nintendo, Nintendo didn't 'fire' them as in the cases of Rare and Leftfield.

When Nintendo takes a second party, they're not just adding a title. they're atually going to spend money and time with that developer to help with the development, their game gets exposed to EAD and Miyamoto, gets passed through Nintendo quality control and testing, etc. Nintendo treats it as if it were their game. if the second party they're working with shows any signs of slowing, or problems (specifically, financially) Nintendo will drop them faster than you can say multi-million dollar buy-out.

[Paco]

Paco there's a ton of developers complaining about lack of industry growth and lowered sales every year. less people play video games now then last year and the year before it based on that data. nintendo isn't the only one complaining. you, myself, and others on this board have been playing without a problem, but there are members here who have either slowed their hobby or completely dropped it, and you can see it in conversation, it's gettong harder to find people who play video games that are my age, or if they do they only play FPS's or MMORPG's the mainstream's crack and heroin respectively.

I'll go looking for this data myself but I could have sworn I read that the industry has experienced healthy growth up until very recently (like within the last 6 months).

yeah, Nintendo doesnt do that at all /sarcasm. And gee, i dunno, why would a company want to redefine gaming? Do you really want me to list out Nintendo's GC titles? and Leftfield, Rare and SK were not dropped because of ideals - their official statements (ones they actually gave to share holders) were that they either couldn't keep up with Nintendo's demand for more games and on time to fit a release schedule or the company was in turmoil for whatever reason. Leftfield released like two games over its lifespan and Excitebike was the only thing that made money, Rare had a massive swap in employees and was having a problem getting their content ready anywhere near the projected launch window which finally pissed off Nintendo when they released SFA, the first subpar Rare game... ever. Looking at their XBox and 360 and GBA titles, it's clear that they're having issues. Then of course SK.

Rare did not experience a massive swap in employees. That's been a gross exageration. 6 people (yes, you read that right) left. 4 of them went to form Free Radical and the other two went in different directions. Since then the company has experienced no more turn over than any other company.

Starfox Adventures was delayed because Nintendo wanted to make Starfox the theme. Before that it was called Dinosaur Planet. Come on, you should know these things.

Sk interview: We wannted to make bigger games and Nintendo doesn't want that.

Sk release to share holderers: as per our last meeting we are continuing with our drive towards other consoles to increase exposure and revenue.

How are those contradicting? First is the reason they left, and second is what's happening after the fact. Of course you'll spin this in Nintendo's favor so I'm not sure why I'm even arguing the point.

if you do your homework you'll see that Nintendo and it's second/third parties have majorly huge games that were much larger than Eternal Darkness so people were left scratching their heads when they heard this news. but it was litteraly propoganda from SK's PR to get people angry at Nintendo and interested in SK's future titles, but it was SK themselves who broke from Nintendo, Nintendo didn't 'fire' them as in the cases of Rare and Leftfield.

Majorly huge? Are you talking about Namco's Starfox, Sega's F-Zero GX, or Capcom's Minish Cap? Franchises that were going to do well anyway given their respective fanbases on a Nintendo platform. I'm not even sure Starfox did all that well.

None of this matters. I'm still saying they need a more diverse portfolio of franchises and genres.

When Nintendo takes a second party, they're not just adding a title. they're atually going to spend money and time with that developer to help with the development, their game gets exposed to EAD and Miyamoto, gets passed through Nintendo quality control and testing, etc. Nintendo treats it as if it were their game. if the second party they're working with shows any signs of slowing, or problems (specifically, financially) Nintendo will drop them faster than you can say multi-million dollar buy-out.

Miyamoto must have been absent the day Namco's Starfox came through the office.

I assume you're referring to Rare with that last sentence and I don't think it's justified. Many of Nintendo's games score anywhere between 8-10, fewer actually managing it close to 10. Rare's two latest games both scored high 8's, PDZ even getting a few 9's.

[Paco]

In 2005, the total U.S. sales of video game hardware, software and accessories rose 6% over 2004 to $10.5 billion USD ($9.9 billion, 2004) breaking 2002's $10.3 billion record for the industry.

The increase is largely due to the portable game market which counterbalanced sluggish console game sales. Delays, hardware shortages, and anticipation of next-generation video game consoles have been cited as reasoning for slow sales for both console games and console hardware. Console games and hardware dropped by 12% and 3% respectively.

The portable market of the video game industry rose to $1.4 billion, the second time sales have broke the $1 billion mark in the industry's history. Mostly due to the release of the Nintendo DS and the Sony PSP in North America, sales for portable hardware rose 96% over 2004. Although the release of the Nintendo DS and the Sony PSP aided in spurring growth in the portable market, the Game Boy Advance still represented 62% total portable software units sold and 52% of total portable software dollar sales. [1]

Computer games continued its trend and declined by 14%, dropping from $1.1 billion in 2004 to $953 million. Although sales did decrease, NPD claims that playing games on the PC is actually increasing through a variety of different mediums including online websites and MMO subscriptions. [2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_in_video_gaming

Not as gloomy as Nintendo wants you to believe.

[Great Rumbler]

Iwata een bom zal droppen!

[lazyfatbum]

hahaha i'd read your posts but i'd rather masturbate myself than watch you do it.

here's a tip, try getting your news from other sources than xbox forums and wikipedia.

[Paco]

mind sharing your source?

I'm guessing it's from a Nintendo site, but myabe you'll surprise me.

[Paco]

By Lisa Baertlein | December 14, 2005

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - U.S. retail sales of video game hardware and software fell 9 percent from a year ago to come in just under $1.3 billion, market researchers NPD Group said on Wednesday.

Article Tools
Printer friendly
E-mail to a friend
Technology RSS feed
Available RSS feeds
Most e-mailed
More:
Business section |
Latest business news |
Globe front page |
Boston.com
Sign up for: Globe Headlines e-mail | Breaking News Alerts Video game sales dropped 18 percent to nearly $700 million, as consumers saved and waited for the launch of Microsoft Corp.'s <MSFT.O> next-generation Xbox 360 gaming console and as overall hardware unit sales dropped.

The decline was widely expected by analysts, who noted that video game sales have softened amid a transition to new console technology and Xbox 360 shortages. The November results also compared with year-earlier figures that were buoyed by strong sales of blockbuster titles "Halo 2" and "Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas."

"(The) current video game retail environment is tough," Bank of America equity research analyst Gary Cooper said in a client note.

NPD Group measures nearly two-thirds of retail sales in the United States and makes projections for the remainder of the market.

Microsoft's Xbox 360 debuted on November 22 in North America, sold out quickly and has remained in short supply.

Analysts noted that the launch of the software giant's new console was not enough to lift overall hardware unit sales, which fell 21 percent year-on-year to 2.9 million units, analysts said.

Nevertheless, hardware sales were up almost 10 percent on a dollar basis, landing at $456 million, NPD said.

Wedbush Morgan Securities analyst Michael Pachter attributed most of the November decline in video game sales to a sales shortfall on existing, or current-generation, gaming consoles -- particularly the original Xbox, which analysts said saw November unit sales plummet 75 percent.

Pachter had expected November video game software sales of $715 million, and noted that several new game releases performed worse than forecast, indicating a slow start for the holidays.

One game that analysts said underperformed was "True Crime: New York City" an Activision Inc. <ATVI.O> urban action game sequel to a popular title.

Still, Pachter said a late burst of buying over the next two weeks could move the needle back into positive territory.

UBS Investment Research analyst Michael Wallace said in a note that software sales are down 3 percent year to date. His estimate calls for a 1 percent decline in 2005.

Pachter's 2005 estimate calls for overall video game unit sales that are flat to negative.

Bank of America's Cooper said launch sales of the Xbox 360 totaled 325,902 units.

Analysts said renewed supplies could help boost year-end numbers, but that the likelihood of new stocks remained the big unknown for the holiday season.

"Given continued uncertainty among consumers about the availability of Xbox 360 units, we think that slow sales may persist in December," said Pachter, who noted that Xbox 360 software generated $70 million in sales in November.

Overall industry sales in dollars were up 5 percent year-to-date, NPD said.

http://www.boston.com/business/technolog...gy+stories

Handhelds fuel rise in video-game sales
Six-month of rise of 21 percent seen despite decline in console purchases
Updated: 10:22 a.m. ET July 28, 2005
Retail sales of U.S. video games hardware, software and accessories rose 21 percent in the first six months of the year, as the popularity of handheld devices offset a decline in aging game consoles, a study said.

The video games industry, which has been rocked this month by concerns over sexual content in one of its most popular titles — Take-Two Interactive Software Inc.'s "Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas," saw sales rise to over $4.1 billion in the period, from $3.4 billion in 2004, research firm NPD Group said in a report. Overall unit sales rose 11 percent.

NPD said the gains were buoyed by the introduction of new portable handheld game devices, including Sony Corp.'s PlayStation Portable (PSP) and Nintendo Co. Ltd.'s DS dual-screen machine. Overall, portable game hardware sales rose 181 percent over a year ago, the study said.

Sales of console hardware, such as Sony's PlayStation 2, Nintendo's GameCube and Microsoft Corp.'s Xbox, fell 6 percent.

Retail revenue from games for the personal computer fell 10.5 percent in the first half of the year.

Sony Corp's "Gran Turismo 4" racing game sold the most units in the period, followed by Nintendo's "Pokemon Emerald" and Electronic Arts Inc.'s "MVP Baseball 2005."

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8740581

Video game sales seen pausing after record 2003
LONDON (Reuters) — Video game sales soared to a record $18.2 billion last year, but the days of strong growth are on pause as players await a new generation of consoles in 2005 and 2006, a new study showed on Wednesday.
Recent price cuts in Europe for Microsoft's Xbox and Sony's PlayStation 2 plus new releases in reliably selling franchises such as Grand Theft Auto, Halo and Doom are expected to boost sales in the second half of 2004.

But sales for the entire year are expected to be flat compared to 2003, at $18.2 billion, said London-based research group Screen Digest in its annual study.

Screen Digest pointed out that the slowdown had been long anticipated as it follows the typical trend for game consoles entering their third and fourth years on store shelves.

"2003 was the peak. But the slow to stable growth for 2004 is positive. There were a lot more consoles sold in this cycle than in the past one," said Ben Keen, executive director for Screen Digest.

Over the past decade, the growth rate for video game turnover has exploded, rivalling cinema box office takings and CD sales in several major markets.

Screen Digest defined the market in its annual report as including video games for personal computers and consoles such as PlayStation 2, Xbox and Nintendo's GameCube, plus "edutainment" titles, or hybrid entertainment-education software.

Global video game sales growth in 2003 was led by Europe, and in particular Britain, Screen Digest said.

The British video game market, the third-largest in the world behind the United States and Japan, jumped almost 20% to $1.88 billion. The Western European market climbed 21% to $6.4 billion, the researchers said.

Screen Digest predicted global retail sales will rise a further 16% to $21.1 billion by 2007.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/techinvesto...ales_x.htm



There. Three against your none. Still not seeing how this is a broken industry. Nintendo's just trying to spin the trend of slower growth as we approach a new generation to sell you the idea that what they're doing is necessary.

[lazyfatbum]

Yes, it's not neccesary to grab hold of the other 50% of the demographics who dont play games, Nintendo shouldn't try to spread the market in to completely untapped demographics either, and you're right, an overall 20 to 30 percent drop in console sales over the past few years is nothing to worry about for a company that SELLS HARDWARE /more sarcasm

you posted 3 articles that litteraly agree with Nintendo, what's your point?

[Weltall]

and you're right, an overall 20 to 30 percent drop in console sales over the past few years is nothing to worry about for a company that SELLS HARDWARE /more sarcasm

Well, the current generation is six years running. Of course console sales are going to decline. However, the PS2 has already outsold the PS1 despite being available for six fewer years, which would make it the best-selling console of all time, so I don't really think that's indicative of a long-term slump.

[Paco]

Well, the current generation is six years running. Of course console sales are going to decline. However, the PS2 has already outsold the PS1 despite being available for six fewer years, which would make it the best-selling console of all time, so I don't really think that's indicative of a long-term slump.

QFT

Nintendo shouldn't try to spread the market in to completely untapped demographics either,

Didn't say that. I am wondering why they are completely abandoning it though. That is unless they throw a GC controller shell into every Revolution box (which I'm hoping for).

[Great Rumbler]

If nothing else, Nintendo should be able to gain some ground in Japan. And if they can convince a few Japanese developers that their games can succeed on the Revolution, then that pretty much guaranties a surge in the other regions. A lot of things need to happen between now and the end of the year though.

[A Black Falcon]

You keep forgetting the bigger picture here. Why isn't the Gamecube number one. My answer is that it doesn't have as much variety and selection as the number one console does.

And I'm saying that the lacking variety is a symptom of being behind, not a cause of it, and that if Nintendo could figure out how to come up with a first party lineup that would draw people in, the third party game numbers would go way up...

As if it needs to. Why would I make myself sit at a computer desk to play a game when I really don't feel like it?

Your argument against PC games is, to say the least, highly lacking... it's about the GAMES! And anyway, some kinds of games work better in a PC setting -- strategy games, for instance. Strategy games on consoles just aren't the same... graphic adventures, too. And wargames. Etc.

Problem. I haven't been sold on Nintendo's perspective that there's something wrong with gaming. I thorougly enjoyed this past generation.

The path isn't broken, it's just one Nintendo can't cut it on.

Nintendo keeps saying that there is a problem for several reasons. First, because Nintendo thinks of Japan first and only when making its policies; they then later try to come up with ways to make those policies work for the rest of the world too. So, since Japan has a problem with falling game sales and flagging interest, much more so than the US's much earlier problem, Nintendo is moving to change things by increasing the demographic. By attracting people who don't play games or just would consider using these kinds of programs (Touch Generations mainly) on a PC or PDA or cellphone. It's working brilliantly, of course, and I fully expect (as GR said) to see Nintendo's Japanese marketshare continue to go up. The Revolution will do better than the GC in Japan by a good margin. Heck, they might even manage to turn around sales there...

The problem is the rest of the world, of course. The US doesn't have the problems Japan has nearly as bad. Oh, originality is not in good shape, and sales this year have gone down (excepting handhelds), but most people wouldn't say that there is a problem like Nintendo execs do, but they've got to act like it's worse than it is to have anything to say when dealing with a strategy designed for Japan... of course, the US DOES have problems and Nintendo's strategy could help them (expanding the market, etc), so good could come out of it, but it is true that it's a tougher sell here. Particularly when, as I said before, Nintendo's efforts to release substantive numbers of cross-generational, market-expanding titles here is comparitively limited... and their marketing... well... the less said about that the better...