Nintendo is Falling Apart

[BigBoss]

Well, it very much depends on how you look at it, but getting needlessly technical on the subject is bringing us nowhere.

Well, I guess that is true.

 

[pokejungle]

I don't know. A good old-fashioned debates are always fun ^_~

 

[Arcanine]

If that is so, why does the Revolution have all those add-ons like a DVD player, online, and so-on? They may make more than enough money now..... but in the next generation of games (beyond DS/middle of Revolution) they are going to be acting like Sony and Microsoft, depending on handheld systems with no add-ons,
or if they decide to add stuff to it and lose more money, they just could do another Sega.

You have to pay for an ad-on to make the DVD player work (like the X-Box had to have a remote to make the DVD player to work). So in a way they are making a little money off the DVD player. DVD players now days don't cost all that much. Go to any Wal-Mart or Target and I'm sure you can find a small DVD player for 100 dollars or less (I've seen some for 75 bucks). I guess they are adding it because some people wants a DVD player.
The online stuff is free. Look at my last post and I said that the online thing itself will sell Revolutions. Yes playing online is free but how many people will buy the Revolution and the next SSB game just to play it online? I'm sure there will be lots and lots of people. It got me all worked up when I heard a new SSB game was going to be on the Revolution. I liked it even more when I heard that it's going to be online. In the long run I think the online stuff is going to pay for itself with game sells (a new online game comes out, everyone runs out to buy it to play online).
Downloading old games you will have to pay for them. So they will be making money off of people downloading old games to their Rev.

Now that I think about it..... doesn't a touch screen count as a add-on? And now, they are going to put wi-fi on it. Doesn't that count as a add-on? If you say it that way, the thing keeping it from collapsing is the GBA and GC.

No the touch-screen is not an add-on. That's like saying the PS2's CD drive or the controller ports are add-ons to the PS2. It's a main part of the system like the game port is to any handheld (it might use Cards, CDs or Cartridges but they all have some way to play games). The Wi-Fi on the DS is counted as an add-on. Because it's not a "Have to have" for the system to work. I don't know how far the DS will go with online DS games. But at least it's not like how Sony and Microsoft adds stuff to their systems. The DS is making money for Nintendo, the PSP is losing money for Sony. There is a difference there in them two handhelds.

 

[Gorosaurus]

What's too bad is that sex and gore shouldn't be selling =/ Games like GTA aren't arguably better than Gran Turismo. Our culture is so warped it's beyond disgusinting.

Personally, if Nintendo dies of not letting GTA on it's consoles, more power to them. I'm a fanboy, yet I'm proud of their moral values.

AMEN. That's the only reason I care about the videogame scene at all right now.. because Nintendo is a company with at least a shred of integrity

 

[pokejungle]

AMEN. That's the only reason I care about the videogame scene at all right now.. because Nintendo is a company with at least a shred of integrity

I'm glad at least someone agrees with me -.-;; My school is a mass of GTA mongers >>;

 

[Dark Penguin]

not to mention all the microsoft games are starting to get stupid. over 60% of microsoft's games are shooters, which, can be fun, but we are seeing WAY too many of them. yes there are some really good ones, but when you get down to it, they aren't that much different. shooters are fun, but they get old after awhile. and the media makes it seem like if you play games you have to play the "cool" games, which are either racing, sports, or shooters. Microsoft has gone to the extreme with shooters, which makes gaming get really boring. sony isn't quite as bad, but they tend to lean towards the "cool" games, and make a lot of racing and shooters that make them famous. Nintendo is the rebel; they make a few of the "cool" games, but focus mostly on what they consider to be good games, not what the media shows. Their games tend to be innovative and "different." That is truely the major difference between the companies. Is one better than the other? No. It is your opinion, whether you like the socially "cool" games (and a lot of people find them fun, or else they wouldn't be so popular) or do you like the innovative games? It is all opinion.

 

[pokejungle]

Very true.

At least the PS2 has a lot of RPGs on them right now >>;

The sad thing is that I hate shooters v.v;; It's so hard to move you and your scope at the same time. If I played them, I'm sure I'd get used to it, but, meh...=P

 

[Dark Penguin]

yeah, like i said, Sony is halfway between Microsoft and Nintendo. they have a lot of "cool" games, but also have a lot of "fun" games, for lack of better terminology.

 

[BigBoss]

Actually, I just remembered.... Nintendo HAS let GTA on one of their systems..... the GBA in GTA Advance. Just thought I'd point that out.

 

[Dark Penguin]

yeah, and your point is? thats one game, and doesn't change the fact that they make mostly "fun' games rather than "cool" games.

 

[Arcanine]

not to mention all the microsoft games are starting to get stupid. over 60% of microsoft's games are shooters, which, can be fun, but we are seeing WAY too many of them. yes there are some really good ones, but when you get down to it, they aren't that much different. shooters are fun, but they get old after awhile. and the media makes it seem like if you play games you have to play the "cool" games, which are either racing, sports, or shooters. Microsoft has gone to the extreme with shooters, which makes gaming get really boring. sony isn't quite as bad, but they tend to lean towards the "cool" games, and make a lot of racing and shooters that make them famous. Nintendo is the rebel; they make a few of the "cool" games, but focus mostly on what they consider to be good games, not what the media shows. Their games tend to be innovative and "different." That is truely the major difference between the companies. Is one better than the other? No. It is your opinion, whether you like the socially "cool" games (and a lot of people find them fun, or else they wouldn't be so popular) or do you like the innovative games? It is all opinion.

Well that and a lot of Football games. I think the first game on the 360 (the first to be let out) was a Football game. But I might be wrong on that.
But the X-Box does have a lot of Football games on and to me it's all the same. And I know it's all on X-Box Live but it gets kind of old.

 

[Dark Penguin]

yeah, to most people, but the football games are on every system. trust me, i love football games, and have all of the maddens (from 01-05) on my GCN. If you follow the NFL, you have to get the new games to get the updated rosters. meh, trust me, if your a big enough football fan, you tend to buy the games. but shooters tend to get old, becuase you don't have new rosters and can't follow them in real life.

 

[John Denver]

Sports games sell more than any other genre of game...

Hmm? Yep...that's all I'm posting...ha!

 

[Arcanine]

I still find football games boring. XD
In a way it might be boring to you but others it isn't. I'm into RPG games, I'm sure someone might think "Playing RPGs over and over will get boring since they all are more or less the same". Not so if you're into it, Football games and shooters and all types of games are the same way. They might be boring to some but others find them fun.

 

[Kurosaki]

Sports games sell more than any other genre of game...

Hmm? Yep...that's all I'm posting...ha!

Apparently not around my parts, since sports games are never out for rent, nor do barely anyone sell them. We Ontarioans just aren't that sporty, XD

 

[Ninja]

not to mention all the microsoft games are starting to get stupid. over 60% of microsoft's games are shooters, which, can be fun, but we are seeing WAY too many of them. yes there are some really good ones, but when you get down to it, they aren't that much different. shooters are fun, but they get old after awhile. and the media makes it seem like if you play games you have to play the "cool" games, which are either racing, sports, or shooters. Microsoft has gone to the extreme with shooters, which makes gaming get really boring. sony isn't quite as bad, but they tend to lean towards the "cool" games, and make a lot of racing and shooters that make them famous. Nintendo is the rebel; they make a few of the "cool" games, but focus mostly on what they consider to be good games, not what the media shows. Their games tend to be innovative and "different." That is truely the major difference between the companies. Is one better than the other? No. It is your opinion, whether you like the socially "cool" games (and a lot of people find them fun, or else they wouldn't be so popular) or do you like the innovative games? It is all opinion.

Nintendo the rebel? I don't think so. They may be the rebel as far as giving the middle finger to third party support and they think they can hold their own on first party. They can't. The next huge first party game on the gamecube is Zelda, with that said possibly Geist. Other than that, nothing. Zip, nada.

Sony and Microsoft have good balances of Third Party, Second Party, and First Party. I agree, it's your opinion in the end. But I really don't see the fuss on how Nintendo Jesus H. Christ in innovation.

I really think Sony is doing well in the innovation department. Their doing amazingly well in platformers, which is a huge surprise this generation. Everyone thought Nintendo would dominate due to franchises like Mario, and Donkey Kong. But sony has Rachet and Clank series which is probably the best platformer series in this gen. The Game Ranking percent is in the 90's which is really good. Along with the Jak and Daxter franchise.

If nintendo wants to get back in the game, they need support. Which is the reason it's not doing well with fans.

Edit: You guys seem to forget Nintendo has all the football games that the other consoles have.

and from that to the first. Along with the Sega Sports games, and the ESPN franchise.

 

[BigBoss]

You guys seem to forget Nintendo has all the football games that the other consoles have.

and from that to the first. Along with the Sega Sports games, and the ESPN franchise.

..... Without online, being the reason why the PS2 and Xbox ones are better.

 

[Ninja]

Agreed. I just thought that cmatz and sombody else were saying that all the other consoles had all the football games while the Gamecube didn't. Sorry.

 

[John Denver]

Apparently not around my parts, since sports games are never out for rent, nor do barely anyone sell them. We Ontarioans just aren't that sporty, XD

It's Canada...whadya expect! snarl!

*runs away from angry canadians*

 

[Ninja]

DarkLink: Quite subjective. I usually don't need online gaming. It's an exciting thing, but I'm not too accepting of it. I like pure gaming sometimes.

Dakota: ... Is that supposed to be funny? That's asking to get flamed at. Oo;

Well that's silly. I consider online as an add on making it even more 'pure'. Thus getting more out of your money. Plus online games these days are always optional.