Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Lulz. +1Correct me if I am wrong here,OK
Correct me if I am wrong here, but if Nintendo had aquired more western third party developers and they developed games that sold very well then the financial turmoil that Nintendo is currently facing would be lessened? Now if they co-developed with western developers then they would still have profit, but not nealry as much as if it was exclusively their internal developers because the profits would have to be split and Nnitendo could not horde the cash for themselves.Ignoring the various issues of just acquiring developers, it would really depend on when Nintendo cuts off development for their current hardware. All teams have to make the transition. It's possible that Nintendo could have managed the timing of game development so that there would be no drought at the end of the Wii's hardware cycle but it's just as likely that Nintendo would have moved those teams to Wii U projects sooner rather than later, still resulting in a drought but a stronger lineup for Wii U.
Instead just using smaller studio's in the West like Monster and Next Level Games, they'll start teaming up with the big guns like Epic and Valve similar to how they would team up with Capcom, Namco, SquareEnix and Tecmo in Japan.That'll be the day... Don't get me wrong, I see Nintendo working with Western developers more moving forward, but probably not with Epic or Valve. Well, if Valve is involved with Nintendo Network somehow, then that's a possibility. Epic seems far more unlikely.
Actually, the reports are that Orton was originally gonna win the rumble until his injury. He did come back in time, but they had already changed the plans.Depends on the report, sir. I've read everything from Jericho just winning to Orton and Jericho going into overtime to both of them winning. Not that it matters at this point but I'm just sharing what I've read. Still seems pretty odd to hype up Jericho's return just have him lose but they did that back in 2007. In any case, if the swerve rumors are true, the creative team just needs to let it happen. That's why storylines exist. If they're predictable, write better ones.
The unification rumors has existed for years, I will not believe it until it happens.I'm more inclined to believe it this time considering the WWE basically reunited the brands with the Raw Supershow. I'm a fan of the Big Gold Belt but there's really no reason for it to exist. There are just too many titles, especially if WWE plans on having one brand moving forward.
Whoops...Does this have anything to do with development costs which is what we're talking about? Probably not when you look at sales of Nintendo's actual games vs. their respective budgets. Nintendo had next to nothing new on the Wii besides Skyward Sword and botched the launched of 3DS. It's not difficult to see where Nintendo fudged things. Nintendo posted years of profit before 2011 when they had major titles to sell throughout the year and weren't trying to sell a $250 handheld with a weak launch lineup.
Has the audience really expanded *that* much?Yes. Significantly more people play videogames today and more are born every year.
Obviously, this chart only reflects Japanese numbers and is a few years old, but a twenty year old port of an NES game outselling the high-budget "next gen" Mario Galaxy?I find it odd that you would use Mario (or really any Nintendo IP) as an example. Nintendo games are low risk, high reward products even with higher budgets. While I don't think the comparison is fair (the port was $30 less and sold mostly on nostalgia), it's important to note that Super Mario Galaxy still made Nintendo tons of money, certainly enough to justify a direct sequel using the same exact engine which also made Nintendo tons of money.
The audience may have expanded, but so has the selection available to them. Outside of a few HD Winners (Call of Duty, for example), the extra sales are in no way comparable to the increase in budgets from the NES-era to today.The selection has expanded, but isn't today's larger audience also buying more games? Also, if you're going to compare budgets from 1986 against budgets in 2012, it looks a lot worse than it actually is since it doesn't take over 25 years worth of steady increases into account. Go back even 10 years ago (prior to DLC on consoles), budgets continued to rise but companies still made money.
While I agree with the sentiment, I don't believe this is actually the case. Counterpoint: remember the old id software Quake 1 demo CD that actually had the entire id game collection up to that point on it? Unlockable by ordering codes over the phone. I wouldn't feel entitled to all that just for paying less than 10 dollars.Fair enough. To clarify: one buys Game X specifically for the content of Game X so the belief is that one has already purchased that content at retail. In any case, as someone who has never purchased DLC, I don't have an opinion either way on the subject. I was merely attempting to explain the line of thinking.
This, of course, doesn't acknowledge the fact that development costs have skyrocketed in today's world.It does. I believed these things to be understood. More sophisticated games may require larger budgets but the industry has matured since Zelda 1 and is much larger today. Budgets have risen due to technological demands and so has the audience for such products.
I'm just impressed that we even get this...*universe explodes*
