We store cookies, you can get more info from our privacy policy.

Fanboyism or: Cutting off Your Nose to Spite Your Face

by Nick DiMola - August 26, 2008, 11:40 am EDT
Total comments: 125

Logically anyone who is invested enough in gaming to pick a side, is invested enough to care about gaming in general. So with that type of an investment why even bother exclusively picking a side? If you are open-minded and accepting, chances are you will find a greater amount of things to like across all platforms and genres.

By cutting a game, genre, or system out of your repertoire just for the sake of being on a side is cutting off your nose to spite your face. You can continue to have a preference for something (that is a normal human trait) while still enjoying things outside of your preference. That doesn't make you a traitor, it makes you logical.

Of course this is a Nintendo driven website, so the preference of most readers of the site is Nintendo. However, as fans of Nintendo, it's ok to experience non-Nintendo systems and games and still be a fan of Nintendo. It is frustrating for me to read comments on a wide variety of sites where every discussion devolves into console wars, or franchise wars, or genre wars. It's foolish nonsense and it is closed-mindedness.

Fanboyism can be an easy trap to fall into, but remember its only hurting one person, and that's you.

Talkback

Nice try, but that was way too short and to the point to be an NWR Staff Blog post.

DAaaMan64August 26, 2008

Are you saying N00bWRers are up their own ass and smelling their farts?

;)

NinGurl69 *hugglesAugust 26, 2008

Fanboyism certainly isn't a problem here.

I wonder what prompted this blog poast.

Nick DiMolaNick DiMola, Staff AlumnusAugust 26, 2008

Quote from: NinGurl69

Fanboyism certainly isn't a problem here.

I wonder what prompted this blog poast.

Actually Kotaku did. Reading comments there pisses me off and I thought this would be a good venue to get out my frustrations.

Plus I think it is an interesting discussion point.

vuduAugust 26, 2008

What if we just don't like a certain company because of what they represent?  Nintendo is the last console manufacturer that primarily makes money by selling video games.  Sony and Microsoft are multi-billion dollar electronics companies that honestly don't care (that much) about the video game industry.

Nintendo has said before (and I honestly agree) that these big, multi-million dollar games are going to put the industry as a whole in jeopardy.  When a game needs to sell millions of copies before it breaks even the majority of games lose money.  The games that do sell are going to spawn countless sequels and imitators that will eventually lead to a stagnant industry.

There are a few of games on other systems that I would really like to play.  However, I don't have time to play the games I want to on my Wii and DS, so I simply can't justify purchasing a second (or third) system for a handful of games.

Full disclosure:  I've never owned a non-Nintendo console.  First I was too young and poor to be able to afford a second system.  Now I'm too busy to justify the purchase of a console I would barely get to play.  (I'll probably seriously consider a PS3 as a Blu-ray player in a few years when I'm ready to buy an HDTV.)

Nick DiMolaNick DiMola, Staff AlumnusAugust 26, 2008

See but what you describe vudu isn't really fanboyism. You aren't saying that there can't be good games on other systems, just that with your limited time, the games you want to play the most are on a certain system, so you opt to play solely there because that is where you are getting your best value. This is logical and can not be criticized.

If you can't respect other gaming experiences elsewhere because they don't align with your tastes, that is when you start treading on the ground of fanboyism. It would be unreasonable to expect people to try and experience everything, but keeping an open mind keeps you out of fanboyism land.

D_AverageAugust 26, 2008

What about Fast-Food Fanboys?  Is that OK???
http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/8742/gabenewellxg9.png

KFC FTW!!!

When I was in elementary/middle school there was a lot of picking sides whether it be Sega or Nintendo or Sony.
As I got older and actually had the money to buy my own games and other consoles if I wanted to, I realized that a lot of my fanboyism with Nintendo came from the inability to play the other systems. I still don't really like Sony, but I have a PS2 that gets occasional play and I will eventually get a PS3.

While I still have an preference towards Nintendo, I am no longer a Nintendo fanboy.

However, I consider myself a little bit of a Harmonix fanboy although they're making it very difficult for me to keep it up with their shaky unconfirmed Wii outings. But seriously, the charts are Guitar Hero III are totally off. I played GHIII, I enjoyed it. I prefer Rock Band.

ShyGuyAugust 26, 2008

This sounds like something an Xbot would post.

GoldenPhoenixAugust 26, 2008

GoNintendo is the anti-fanboi fanbois, so what do you have to say about THEM! ;)

Quote from: vudu

Sony and Microsoft are multi-billion dollar electronics companies that honestly don't care (that much) about the video game industry.

Last time I checked, Nintendo was also a multi-billion dollar electronics company.  And Sony and Microsoft have also made some of the best video games ever, just like Nintendo.  To say that they "don't care" about the industry is just plain wrong...they just don't happen to be drinking Nintendo's Kool-Aid.

Quote from: vudu

Nintendo has said before (and I honestly agree) that these big, multi-million dollar games are going to put the industry as a whole in jeopardy.  When a game needs to sell millions of copies before it breaks even the majority of games lose money.  The games that do sell are going to spawn countless sequels and imitators that will eventually lead to a stagnant industry.

I think Nintendo's whole "big-budget games are killing the industry" mantra is more a convenient way to justify their business strategy than anything else.  As a company, they want to make as much profit as possible, so it serves their business interests to promote a philosophy that has them spending as little money as possible to develop a game.  They aren't battling for technological superiority of your living room like Microsoft and Sony, so it makes sense that they're espousing the virtues of cheap development on older hardware.  But Mother Theresa they ain't.

Besides, I'd argue that the industry needs those blockbuster "event" games to draw attention to itself.  The industry can't survive by big-budget games alone, but like the movie industry you need the summer blockbusters and also the hidden gems to make it all work.

I think that Nintendo has been very savvy in recognizing that it's not the proliferation of big-budget games that's the problem, but rather the absence of smaller-scale games that are less involved and more accessible to the average person.

GoldenPhoenixAugust 26, 2008

Quote:

Last time I checked, Nintendo was also a multi-billion dollar electronics company.

Seriously it was pretty clear what he meant MS and Sony are HUGE and diverse. To them the gaming division is just one of their many departments, unlike Nintendo where gaming IS their business. MS is into the gaming business to get its tendrils into another market and Sony is the same way. Both companies more than likely would survive without gaming, unlike Nintendo who IS gaming first and foremost.

Basically:

1. MS and Sony see gaming as A business
2. Nintendo, gaming IS their business

TheFleeceAugust 26, 2008

Last time I checked Sony and Microsoft have contractual deals with the US Military and Nintendo doesn't. That's the honest to for real serious truth why I really opted for another Nintendo machine. Not to mention I grew up with Nintendo and more than their consoles I've always enjoyed every incarnation of hand held they've released. That isn't to say I don't see a XBox or PS3 game and say- 'Well that would be fun to play' and indeed I visited my friend for a few days and we played alot of XBox, but I couldn't justify spending my money and not pretending where its going.

D_AverageAugust 26, 2008

Quote from: GoldenPhoenix

Quote:

Last time I checked, Nintendo was also a multi-billion dollar electronics company.

Seriously it was pretty clear what he meant MS and Sony are HUGE and diverse. To them the gaming division is just one of their many departments, unlike Nintendo where gaming IS their business. MS is into the gaming business to get its tendrils into another market and Sony is the same way. Both companies more than likely would survive without gaming, unlike Nintendo who IS gaming first and foremost.

Basically:

1. MS and Sony see gaming as A business
2. Nintendo gaming IS their business

I thought we all agreed after E3 that:
Nintendo, gaming WAS their business    8)

NWR_pap64Pedro Hernandez, Contributing WriterAugust 26, 2008

As much as I despise fanboyism the two things I hate about it are fanboyism within fanboyism and when the media behaves as badly as the fans.

This is very common among Nintendo fans. Ever since the casual debacle of 2006 the Nintendo fandom has been divided into three:

-The fan that is so outraged by Nintendo that they created a capsule of hate and feel as if Nintendo has wronged them.

-The extremely fanatical player that sees no wrong in anything Nintendo does, to the point where they defend the lack of a storage device and friend codes.

-And finally, the level headed Nintendo fan that gives credit when credit is due and criticizes when there's need for it.

Now, I know that people will see Nintendo through their own eyes and the feeling will always be different. But lately, you can't even talk about a game without some kind of angst or rabid fandom behind it, and at times it sucks and its annoying as hell.

To the angsty fans I say...GET OVER IT! Yes, Nintendo's E3 2008 conference sucked big time, and Animal Crossing City Folk looks barely like an update and Wii Music will either be good or bad. However, that doesn't mean you must bring that issue out whenever we are talking about "Wario Land Shake it" and ruining the experience for those that just want to talk about a game.

And the overly fanatical, Nintendo is a company. Companies are run by humans. Humans mess up a lot of times. Which means that Nintendo can make mistakes, and if they are apparent we will call them out. That doesn't mean we are angry or are disrespecting Nintendo. While some of us will take it too far (see the angsty fanboy above) some of us will politely criticize it and likely move on. Nintendo's a great company, yes, but not a perfect one. Accept that and we should all be happy.

Now regarding fanboyism in the media, to an extend its understandable. Like Karl said in the Radio Free Nintendo thread many game journalists  are really just fans with no real preparation and knowledge of the field. That's fine.

But the problem is that many of the most well known people in the industry behave just as bad as the fans, or at times even worst.

OK, OK. No matter who we are, all of us are deep down fans. Whether its little Timmy or even Miyamoto the industry wouldn't exist today if the people behind it didn't have a love for gaming. However, there are certain actions and attitudes that do more harm that good and I think its time for it to stop.

I am talking about game journalists who have a fandom so stubborn that they publicly bash a game simply because it not what they wanted, or comes from a company they don't like. Or they review a game that is so, so hyped that they are afraid of being honest and instead review it like it was a masterpiece, even if it wasn't perfect.

Yes, I am talking about the GTA IV reviews and the time in which EGM refused to review "Endless Ocean" because it was a casual title different from the typical hardcore FPS fare.

People will burn alive any media outlet that shows blatantly obvious preference and questions its integrity as a news source. Even the movie and music industry have these standards to follow and not even critics (whose sole job is to criticize and pick apart anything in the medium) get away easily with it.

Yet, the videogame industry gets away with blatant fanboyism and its understandable why people don't give it the credit it deserves for being a legit entertainment medium.

Fanboyism within the fans is something expected and will never change. But fanboyism within a medium that claims to inform the player in the fairest way possible is dangerous because it sends an image to non gamers about those that truly enjoy their hobby without letting extreme personal feelings take over the fun.

The fact that Sony and Microsoft have other divisions doesn't mean anything.  It's not like the corporate policies of either one of those companies are funneling money away from their gaming divisions to focus on making Widgets and Doo-dads, or that they're making are somehow "soulless" when compared to Nintendo's apparent vessels of gaming Ambrosia.  Heck, in some cases the gaming division is the only profitable division in either company, so you can bet they're getting huge support from above.  Furthermore, you can't tell me that the people that work in the Sony and Microsoft gaming divisions aren't just as dedicated and passionate about the game industry as anybody at Nintendo.  You can't make the games that those companies make for the consoles and not be incredibly passionate about the industry.

Gaming is Nintendo's business...nowadays.  They were originally making Hanafuda cards, but then starting making video games because they saw the money in it.  Hmmm, entering the video game industry from a related industry to make some money...sounds a lot like Sony and Microsoft, doesn't it?

GoldenPhoenixAugust 26, 2008

Quote from: Silks

The fact that Sony and Microsoft have other divisions doesn't mean anything.  It's not like the corporate policies of either one of those companies are funneling money away from their gaming divisions to focus on making Widgets and Doo-dads, or that they're making are somehow "soulless" when compared to Nintendo's apparent vessels of gaming Ambrosia.  Heck, in some cases the gaming division is the only profitable division in either company, so you can bet they're getting huge support from above.  Furthermore, you can't tell me that the people that work in the Sony and Microsoft gaming divisions aren't just as dedicated and passionate about the game industry as anybody at Nintendo.  You can't make the games that those companies make for the consoles and not be incredibly passionate about the industry.

Gaming is Nintendo's business...nowadays.  They were originally making Hanafuda cards, but then starting making video games because they saw the money in it.  Hmmm, entering the video game industry from a related industry to make some money...sounds a lot like Sony and Microsoft, doesn't it?

Nintendo changed their business completely over to gaming. Sony and MS have made gaming one division out of many, there is a huge difference. Do you honestly think MS's gaming division is their most profitable endeavor? I know with Sony they were using it to fund their other divisions but even that started to dry up when they developed a huge deficit with the PS3. MS has just started making a profit after flushing money down the drain for 2 console generations.

Lindy you cannot be naive enough to truly compare Nintendo to Sony/MS as things currently stand now., at least from a priorities perspective, can you? You are right about Nintendo being into playing cards but that was close to 30 years ago, for the last couple of decades Nintendo's main business has revolved around gaming. Without gaming Nintendo would be nothing, MS and Sony on the other hand could drop gaming and while it may hurt a bit they would be able to move on like any company does that expands to something they end up failing in. Sony with their HUGE electronics division and MS with its software business. Both made a name for themselves from THOSE industries while Nintendo is pretty much known for gaming, and has been for a very long time.  Is it really that difficult to see how weak your comparison with Nintendo and their trading card business?

If Sony and MS fail in the gaming business, they can just go back to whatever they were doing but with a bloody nose, and maybe hairline fracture. Nintendo on the other hand would either find themselves without a parachute as they plummeted to earth, or become a rotting corpse barely animated like Sega before them. That is why Nintendo has pushed innovation the most because they HAVE to, it is for their very survival.

Also I don't believe I said anything about Sony or MS not having great people, in fact I've said in the past they both do and I've met a few at Microsoft, but looking at the nature of how they are structured, makes it virtually impossible to be nearly as focused as Nintendo when it comes gaming. While they will try to put effort in keeping a division afloat, they also are able to cut their losses and move on if things get too bad.

DeguelloJeff Shirley, Staff AlumnusAugust 26, 2008

Uh, Silks, aren't cards a part of "gaming" too?  Or is this another casualty of the ever-shrinking terms of what is or is not a "game?"

I think you are going to lose this one, Silks.  Other than a few ridiculous side-business that Yamauchi tried in the 80's, Nintendo has basically, fundamentally, always been about games, and/or entertainment.  They are the last purely integrated hardware/software makers.  MS and Sony can, and if their losses continue, probably WILL leave the video game business and go to other things, like Operating systems and Televisions.  Nintendo can't as it is their only business.

And if you are one of those guys that think that because they have a history in the business and fans that they'll never, ever leave the industry... well... look at Sega.

Oh and by the way, just because you own everything, doesn't mean you aren't a fanboy.  Some people just can't afford every system ever, especially with some (DS) offering cavalcades of quality over and over again.  So the decision must be weighed against getting 10 awesome DS games or an Xbox 360 by itself.  Decisions that apparently favor the DS frequently to the majority of gamers.

Addendum:

Quote:

If you can't respect other gaming experiences elsewhere because they don't align with your tastes, that is when you start treading on the ground of fanboyism.

HMM.  That sounds very, very familiar.  I may have seen someone exhibit this sort of behavior.

GoldenPhoenixAugust 26, 2008

Quote from: Deguello

Uh, Silks, aren't cards a part of "gaming" too?  Or is this another casualty of the ever-shrinking terms of what is or is not a "game?"

I think you are going to lose this one, Silks.  Other than a few ridiculous side-business that Yamauchi tried in the 80's, Nintendo has basically, fundamentally, always been about games, and/or entertainment.  They are the last purely integrated hardware/software makers.  MS and Sony can, and if their losses continue, probably WILL leave the video game business and go to other things, like Operating systems and Televisions.  Nintendo can't as it is their only business.

And if you are one of those guys that think that because they have a history in the business and fans that they'll never, ever leave the industry... well... look at Sega.

One thing I will concede to Lindy is that you MAY be able to draw a parallel with the early days of Nintendo where gaming was not their focus, but that changed, like I said decades ago. They no longer have anything to fall back on that is not gaming related, while Sony/MS still do, so their "drive" is logically going to be less than Nintendo to stick it through.

Quote:

ever leave the industry... well... look at Sega.

Poor Sega  :'(

Bill AurionAugust 26, 2008

Quote from: Silks

I think Nintendo's whole "big-budget games are killing the industry" mantra is more a convenient way to justify their business strategy than anything else.  As a company, they want to make as much profit as possible, so it serves their business interests to promote a philosophy that has them spending as little money as possible to develop a game. 

Then why the hell does a game like Wario Land Shake exist?  An old-school 2D platformer with hand-drawn characters (yes, a game with sprites costs much more than it does to just use 3D models) and outsourced anime cutscenes? (done by a well-known and renowned animation studio: Production I.G.)

D_AverageAugust 26, 2008

Quote from: Bill

Quote from: Silks

I think Nintendo's whole "big-budget games are killing the industry" mantra is more a convenient way to justify their business strategy than anything else.  As a company, they want to make as much profit as possible, so it serves their business interests to promote a philosophy that has them spending as little money as possible to develop a game. 

Then why the hell does a game like Wario Land Shake exist?  An old-school 2D platformer with hand-drawn characters (yes, a game with sprites costs much more than it does to just use 3D models) and outsourced anime cutscenes? (done by a well-known and renowned animation studio: Production I.G.)

Cost more than Carnival Games it may, but I hardly doubt it comes close to other AAA titles coming out this holiday.

DeguelloJeff Shirley, Staff AlumnusAugust 26, 2008

Quote from: D_Average

Quote from: Bill

Quote from: Silks

I think Nintendo's whole "big-budget games are killing the industry" mantra is more a convenient way to justify their business strategy than anything else.  As a company, they want to make as much profit as possible, so it serves their business interests to promote a philosophy that has them spending as little money as possible to develop a game. 

Then why the hell does a game like Wario Land Shake exist?  An old-school 2D platformer with hand-drawn characters (yes, a game with sprites costs much more than it does to just use 3D models) and outsourced anime cutscenes? (done by a well-known and renowned animation studio: Production I.G.)

Cost more than Carnival Games it may, but I hardly doubt it comes close to other AAA titles coming out this holiday.

Please learn to be relevant, as what you said has little if anything to do with "Nintendo spends as little money as possible on development" conflicting with "Nintendo develops costly 2D game."  You just flapped about hype-based "AAA" ratings and monstrously high budgets as if they meant anything and slammed the keyboard like an ape.  Congrats, but Ian already perfected this art, so you're just an also-ran.

Bill AurionAugust 26, 2008

Quote from: D_Average

Cost more than Carnival Games it may, but I hardly doubt it comes close to other AAA titles coming out this holiday.

You did not just correlate game quality with bleeding-from-every-pore HD budgets, did you?  Trying to compare a Wii game budget and that of an HD console game as if of equal weight is asinine in itself...

I don't understand how people feel that Sony and Microsoft are somehow less invested in the video game arena than Nintendo.  Yes, if the Sony and Microsoft gaming divisions ceased to exist, both of those companies would continue to operate.  But they have BILLIONS tied up in their game divisions, and are fighting tooth and nail to "win".  Sony's been in the space for 13 years, and Microsoft has been in it for what, 7 already?  That's not a short-term investment.  That's not a dalliance, it's not a fling with video gaming.  Playstation and Xbox are two of the most important brands in both of those companies' portfolios.  To say that they're somehow less invested in gaming based on the criteria that their competitor only does gaming is B.S. to me.

Microsoft is so non-invested and ready to turn their back on the industry, that they only stuck around 7 years before they even turned a profit.
http://www.joystiq.com/2007/10/25/microsoft-entertainment-division-turns-profit-thanks-halo/

And Sony was ready to totally bail on the PS3 too and dump their Games division, despite 13 years in the industry and massive success...oh wait, they just turned a profit too.
http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/31/sonys-game-division-turns-a-profit/

This claim that Sony and Microsoft are somehow going to pack up and go home at the first sign of trouble is a MYTH.  They're both here for the duration, and they're both making money so they aren't going to leave.

Quote from: Bill

Then why the hell does a game like Wario Land Shake exist?  An old-school 2D platformer with hand-drawn characters (yes, a game with sprites costs much more than it does to just use 3D models) and outsourced anime cutscenes? (done by a well-known and renowned animation studio: Production I.G.)

If you think Nintendo is breaking the bank to develop Wario Land Shake It, you're crazy.  Nothing against that game, but I'm sure it was done by a pretty small team.  It's not the amount of work involved, it's the number of resources involved that drive development prices up.

DasmosAugust 26, 2008

lol Silks.

I don't understand how people feel that Sony and Microsoft are somehow less invested in the video game arena than Nintendo.

D_AverageAugust 27, 2008

Quote from: Silks

Then why the hell does a game like Wario Land Shake exist?  An old-school 2D platformer with hand-drawn characters (yes, a game with sprites costs much more than it does to just use 3D models) and outsourced anime cutscenes? (done by a well-known and renowned animation studio: Production I.G.)

If you think Nintendo is breaking the bank to develop Wario Land Shake It, you're crazy.  Nothing against that game, but I'm sure it was done by a pretty small team.  It's not the amount of work involved, it's the number of resources involved that drive development prices up.

KDR_11kAugust 27, 2008

Quote from: Silks

Besides, I'd argue that the industry needs those blockbuster "event" games to draw attention to itself.

Whose attention? I sure don't see the MSM reporting on the new GoW, MGS, etc. I do see them report about low budget games like Wii Sports or Fit. You mean the gaming press? Why do you need their attention, there's nothing else they can cover anyway.

Flames_of_chaosLukasz Balicki, Staff AlumnusAugust 27, 2008


I think Nintendo's whole "big-budget games are killing the industry" mantra is more a convenient way to justify their business strategy than anything else.  As a company, they want to make as much profit as possible, so it serves their business interests to promote a philosophy that has them spending as little money as possible to develop a game.  They aren't battling for technological superiority of your living room like Microsoft and Sony, so it makes sense that they're espousing the virtues of cheap development on older hardware.  But Mother Theresa they ain't.

Quote from: vudu

Nintendo is the last console manufacturer that primarily makes money by selling video games.

At this point, I think Nintendo might be making more money off the systems than the games.

DAaaMan64August 27, 2008

Quote from: Jonnyboy117

Quote from: vudu

Nintendo is the last console manufacturer that primarily makes money by selling video games.

At this point, I think Nintendo might be making more money off the systems than the games.

I'm not so sure, is the appeal the Wii? Or the WiiSports pack-in? ;)

Also if blue ocean games are getting simpler, wouldn't that widen the profit margin? :D

GoldenPhoenixAugust 27, 2008

Quote from: Silks

I don't understand how people feel that Sony and Microsoft are somehow less invested in the video game arena than Nintendo.  Yes, if the Sony and Microsoft gaming divisions ceased to exist, both of those companies would continue to operate.  But they have BILLIONS tied up in their game divisions, and are fighting tooth and nail to "win".  Sony's been in the space for 13 years, and Microsoft has been in it for what, 7 already?  That's not a short-term investment.  That's not a dalliance, it's not a fling with video gaming.  Playstation and Xbox are two of the most important brands in both of those companies' portfolios.  To say that they're somehow less invested in gaming based on the criteria that their competitor only does gaming is B.S. to me.

Microsoft is so non-invested and ready to turn their back on the industry, that they only stuck around 7 years before they even turned a profit.
http://www.joystiq.com/2007/10/25/microsoft-entertainment-division-turns-profit-thanks-halo/

And Sony was ready to totally bail on the PS3 too and dump their Games division, despite 13 years in the industry and massive success...oh wait, they just turned a profit too.
http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/31/sonys-game-division-turns-a-profit/

This claim that Sony and Microsoft are somehow going to pack up and go home at the first sign of trouble is a MYTH.  They're both here for the duration, and they're both making money so they aren't going to leave.

Quote from: Bill

Then why the hell does a game like Wario Land Shake exist?  An old-school 2D platformer with hand-drawn characters (yes, a game with sprites costs much more than it does to just use 3D models) and outsourced anime cutscenes? (done by a well-known and renowned animation studio: Production I.G.)

If you think Nintendo is breaking the bank to develop Wario Land Shake It, you're crazy.  Nothing against that game, but I'm sure it was done by a pretty small team.  It's not the amount of work involved, it's the number of resources involved that drive development prices up.

All I have to say is you show a severe lack of understanding of what I was trying to say and business in general. Not ONCE did I say if they run into "a little trouble" they will bail, but there is a point where they WOULD cut their losses and move on far before Nintendo would because of the nature of their business. Nintendo does not have the option to quit and run if things get too tough, they have to whatever they can to continue the gaming industry money tree going which is why they have done far more innovation for the industry. In a way it is kind of like Apple, who was bleeding money and since their main business was computer electronics they had no choice but to stick it out and HAD to innovate someway or they would have disappeared. If you follow businesses, the companies that innovate the most are the ones whose life depends on survival not the big conglomerates who spread their tentacles out to capture another market. Sure they may be pushed to innovation but it is not a priority for them, their priority is sucking off a cash cow as long as they can.

There are many companies out there that have multiple divisions which have been up and running for a very long time but when the environment got too harsh, they cut off the now seemingly dead limb. Don't think MS and Sony won't do the same thing if gaming hits another depression. Sony's will fall back on their movie's division along with electronics while MS will go back to software development.

Think of it this way, MS and Sony, at least on the coorporate level see you, Lindy, as a nice fat cash cow that will help their overall business, but as soon as you become useless to them and become more cost than gain (along with every other gamer that sucks at their teat) they will, while reluctantly send you out to slaughter while they go on sucking off the teat of their other cows. Yeah there is one less cow teat to suck but they have others to rely on, and in the grand scheme of things they will do just fine. Nintendo on the other hand only has one cash cow to get nourishment on and their only choice is to get that cow nice and fat so they can get more nourishing money because they have no other choice. If that cow starts dieing they have to turn to paranormal sciences to try and revive it, because their life essence depends on it.

P.S. In regards to your Sony profits thing, was it the gaming division that rose 25% in profits or was it overall? Because that makes a huge difference. Also is this overall investment has been paying off for them, or just one single year they were profitable? What is the profit/loss ratio OVERALL for PS3? Sounds like this could potentially be yet another Sony spin of the numbers.

GoldenPhoenixAugust 27, 2008

Fascinating article. That really addresses what I mean by focus, if the shareholders are not happy with a division then all the dedicated people in the world within a decision will not save it for very long. Sony has been lucky in that they pretty much scored big time for two generations, but I don't see the stock holders putting up with another lackluster generation of gaming.

I don't want to use the term easy, but for big companies like Sony and MS to invest heavily in an industry that has been showing tremendous growth since the NES days is not what I'd call a mammoth risk. A risk is when you start losing money year after year with a division and continue to stick through it and innovate through very bad times. Neither MS or Sony have really experienced this because they are riding a very rich train at the moment. But wait until profit vs total expenses start kicking in and things don't look too hot, you may see these oh so dedicated companies start showing less interest. Sony has really only had 2 lackluster years so far,  just wait and see what happens when those two years become 5 years with minor return on investment (If that). Suddenly focusing more resources on TV, movies, and other electronic items won't look so bad anymore to the share holders. It is all about risk vs reward, and if you have a diverse lineup of services, you may be safer to cut your losses then to try and spend even more money into truly innovating a failing division.

Anyway this is already beginning to get boring, so let me ask an extremely simple question about this. Who has more to lose if the gaming industry struggles? MS, Sony or Nintendo? And I don't mean just monetarily but also the very foundation/core of the company? Now tell me who would have the biggest "interest" in the industry's future and health? Heck who is the LEAST likely to pull out or severely downscale in the game industry if things went south fast? Come on it isn't that hard. ;)

DeguelloJeff Shirley, Staff AlumnusAugust 27, 2008

Quote:

If you think Nintendo is breaking the bank to develop Wario Land Shake It, you're crazy.  Nothing against that game, but I'm sure it was done by a pretty small team.  It's not the amount of work involved, it's the number of resources involved that drive development prices up.

Since when did the antithesis to "minimal development budget" become "you have to nearly die and go bankrupt making this game?"  You seem to be a slave to dichotomies, Silks.

And as for the idea that MS and Sony have made oodles of profit, please be advised that there are several reports about their profitability, some from the company (which would be Kool-Aid for prospective fanboys and defenders to drink.  Remember, we can trust corporate suits when they are from huge conglomerates, but developers from Nintendo are corporate shills.) and some from independent sources, like so:

http://www.edge-online.com/files/profit_or_loss.gif

And as for passionate people, well I'm sorry to say, Silks, but most companies and divisions that do fail are chock full of passionate people, and have billions invested in them as well.  It's the business suits who look at long term that determine whether or not the company or division is profitable or viable.  You seem to be buying into the resources = strength equation, which so far this generation hasn't bore any fruit.

Does that graph include Sony and Nintendo's massive R&D expenses?  That would be part of their games division's profit and loss statement, I would assume.  Of course Nintendo is making a ton of profit...they basically re-packaged the GameCube with a new controller.  There's minimal R&D expenses for Nintendo on the hardware side, aside from maybe Miyamoto sitting on the crapper thinking up the Wii Remote.

Now theoretically, yes, Sony and Microsoft could cut and run (GP: Yes, I realize that these companies have other divisions...I GET IT).  However, my point was that that is so remote a possibility that there's virtually no chance of that happening.  Both companies kept tossing money at their games division even when it didn't make "business sense" to do so.  And don't even bring up Sega...they were so mismanaged it isn't even funny.  You may disagree with what Sony and Microsoft do, but you can't accuse either company of being mismanaged **in a general sense**.

Sony and Microsoft have just as much interest in the game industry's health and future as Nintendo does.  Just because they aren't making Pikmin 3 and Wii Music doesn't mean that they're bloodsuckers parasitically feeding off the industry (which seems to be the general consensus around here).  Sony and Microsoft did much more for the game industry from 1995-2006 than Nintendo did, that's for sure.  Before the Wii, Nintendo was bordering on irrelevancy (a downslide which, by the way, could be attributed to their greedy move of going with cartridges over CD-ROMs for the N64, which was done to fatten their bottom line because they could charge developers a royalty fee for the cartridges.  So much for helping the industry).

DeguelloJeff Shirley, Staff AlumnusAugust 27, 2008

Quote:

Does that graph include Sony and Nintendo's massive R&D expenses?  That would be part of their games division's profit and loss statement, I would assume.  Of course Nintendo is making a ton of profit...they basically re-packaged the GameCube with a new controller.

Condescending and inflammatory.  Are you sure you're a journalist and not some sort of GameFaqs denizen that took over Lindy's body?  And... if you HAD READ THE CHART, you'd see it was just for last fiscal year beginning April 1st 2007 to March 31st 2008, and has no bearing on any R&D that MS and Sony put into their respective current generation entries.

Quote:

There's minimal R&D expenses for Nintendo on the hardware side, aside from maybe Miyamoto sitting on the crapper thinking up the Wii Remote.

Irrelevant, inflammatory.  Is this how to build trust with readers?

Quote:

Now theoretically, yes, Sony and Microsoft could cut and run (GP: Yes, I realize that these companies have other divisions...I GET IT).  However, my point was that that is so remote a possibility that there's virtually no chance of that happening.

Funnily enough, Nintendo detractors from 5 years ago said Nintendo would pull out and "go the way of Sega", even when they were making $500 million a year.  Why is saying the same about divisions that are hemorrhaging money any less possible?  Because they say so?  (Hint: Corporate suits come equipped with Kool-Aid)

Quote:

Both companies kept tossing money at their games division even when it didn't make "business sense" to do so.

Oh the business sense has little to do with games.  Microsoft was trying to defend against Sony's inroads into home computing and Sony was trying to get their media formats accepted.  Both have somewhat happened, at the expense of billions.  Good magazine reviews, though.  Notice how none of these missions have anything to do with the "Art" of "making games."

Quote:

And don't even bring up Sega...they were so mismanaged it isn't even funny.  You may disagree with what Sony and Microsoft do, but you can't accuse either company of being mismanaged **in a general sense**.

Why not?  Up until 2001 every Sega news story was predicated on the fact that "they would never die!"  And then oh oops shock horror they left, after several quarters of losses.  And now they are a footnote in history, despite having made some of the best games ever.

Quote:

Sony and Microsoft have just as much interest in the game industry's health and future as Nintendo does.  Just because they aren't making Pikmin 3 and Wii Music doesn't mean that they're bloodsuckers parasitically feeding off the industry (which seems to be the general consensus around here).

Not true.  Sony and MS, by default cannot care as much about an industry in which they only have relatively (to their parent companies) small videogame divisions as Nintendo, whose whole company is dedicated to the research, development, and marketing of video games.  That's true of, say, a day care specialist versus a parent.  they may even care equally, but if the child gets cancer, the day care specialist has other children to attend to.  And good job putting words into other peoples mouths.  Nobody said they were parasites.

Quote:

Sony and Microsoft did much more for the game industry from 1995-2006 than Nintendo did, that's for sure.

Whew, spicy!  Hey, speaking of that period, do you know who you sound exactly like?  What with the claims of innovation and who "did more" for the industry instead of this new popular upstart?  Yep!  N64 fans!  And this can be objectively challenged, what with Nintendo basically inventing the very models of 3D Game design and unleashing Pokemon on the world, which is still the best selling and most recognizable RPG in existence.  But I digress, this usually boils down into "who did what first" and is basically pointless.

Quote:

Before the Wii, Nintendo was bordering on irrelevancy (a downslide which, by the way, could be attributed to their greedy move of going with cartridges over CD-ROMs for the N64, which was done to fatten their bottom line because they could charge developers a royalty fee for the cartridges.  So much for helping the industry).

More Spice! I can't tell you how wrong you are about Nintendo's "irrelevancy" before Wii.  You were on this site then, right?  Didn't we cover this?  Unless of course the whole GBA platform didn't exist and the huge megahyped battle between the DS and PSP with the DS coming out the supreme victor and the PSP relegated to "second handheld mainly bought for media and PS2 ports" status.  (And most of NWR picking the PSP.  Oh deary dear, will they ever trust us again?) 

And humorously enough, the GameCube and the Xbox Sold about the same units, especially in comparison to the PS2.  So, readers please note:  The difference between 120 million PS2s and 24 million Xboxes is a rough fight for supremacy!  But the difference between 24 million Xboxes and 21 million GameCubes is the difference between relevancy and irrelevancy.

Also, if "Sticking with carts" was bad because of the refusal to accept an open standard and to charge royalty fees, how does one reject this and accept Blu-Ray, which is basically... the exact. same. thing.  Sony choosing their own format so they can charge royalties (and with the UMD on PSP too).  And what's the point of digging up this ghost of an old PS1 fan talking point anyway?  It doesn't seem relevant in 2008 how much impact a choice made in 1995.

KDR_11kAugust 27, 2008

Quote from: Silks

There's minimal R&D expenses for Nintendo on the hardware side, aside from maybe Miyamoto sitting on the crapper thinking up the Wii Remote.

Because a controller is just a controller and there's no way it could need any major amount of R&D while the box itself is the paragon of human technology, right?

NinGurl69 *hugglesAugust 27, 2008

And this concludes BeiNWRjing 2008.

D_AverageAugust 27, 2008

http://img.qj.net/uploads/articles_module/28041/fanboy2.jpg

NinGurl69 *hugglesAugust 27, 2008

*o*

vuduAugust 27, 2008

Quote from: Silks

I don't understand how people feel that Sony and Microsoft are somehow less invested in the video game arena than Nintendo.  Yes, if the Sony and Microsoft gaming divisions ceased to exist, both of those companies would continue to operate.  But they have BILLIONS tied up in their game divisions, and are fighting tooth and nail to "win".

What exactly are they fighting to win?  Is it sales within the video game space?  Or are they simply fighting to a space in your entertainment center?

It's been argued that neither company really cares about video games.  They use them as a Trojan horse to get their media players into your house so they can sell you other services and content.  They don't care about game sales--they care about system sales.  I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if sometime during the next generation either company offers a non-gaming version of their platform.

The long-term plan is to take over your living room.  Microsoft wants you to use your Xbox to surf the Internet, download movies (for rent or purchase), play (and buy) your music, control your entire home theater system, and--if you feel like it--maybe play a game or two.

GoldenPhoenixAugust 27, 2008

::sits back and watches::

Go Deg (Just don't get too nasty with Lindy).

Christ, an anti-fanboyism article has quickly devolved into an argument dominated by fanboys.

Look, kiddies, neither Microsoft nor Sony could just up and DROP their games divisions. That would be an ENORMOUS financial loss, the ripples of which would not dissipate for years at Microsoft, and probably a decade at Sony. Microsoft is still bleeding money from the original Xbox, and Sony is just starting to patch the spurting green wound that was caused by the PS3.

Nintendo's got money in the bank. Nobody over there has to work another day in his/her life. The GameCube was a crapshoot, sure, but it made BANK. Nintendo made money hand over fist over hand with that little purple box. They made money on the N64, too, thanks mainly to their insistance on the cart format (more expensive to manufacture, more difficult to program). I continue to believe that Nintendo was paranoid about software pirates during the N64 and GC days, which led to radically different software mediums from the competition.

What would happen if Nintendo just closed shop right now? Lots of people would be laid off, sure, but they'd all be given fat severance packages with which to find a new job. The same can't be true for Sony and Microsoft. If they close their games divisions, they will lose tons of money, both in terms of revenue and spent coin they won't get back.

But I think it's silly to say that MS or Sony is "less invested" in the console war than Nintendo. Both companies have sunk BILLIONS of greenbacks in the 'Box and the 'Station. They continue to do so in the hopes of pleasing YOU, the consumer, and making more money. Nintendo's just as bad. I think there's a myth that Nintendo is all about the gamer. That's just not true--Nintendo is all about making money. Thus, the dearth of core games at E3 this year. Their Blue Ocean strategy is so ridiculously successful that they've changed their focus from Mario to Mii. That's great, it's a successful business strategy and it's making a lot of people rich as hell.

Nintendo is not committed to YOU. They're committed to MONEY.

And so are Microsoft and Sony. Look, they're all giant corporations with shareholders to please aand stocks to bolster.

GoldenPhoenixAugust 27, 2008

Thanks for informing us all of your brilliant understanding of the business world and ability to insult everyone here without even addressing ANY of the points made ::rolls eyes::

Nick DiMolaNick DiMola, Staff AlumnusAugust 27, 2008

Quote from: Halbred

Christ, an anti-fanboyism article has quickly devolved into an argument dominated by fanboys.

This is my favorite part of this thread. Somehow Nintendo's business strategy vs. that of Sony and Microsoft has something to do with fanboyism.

I think this gets back to my core point. Who cares? Seriously. They all make systems that play games, regardless of the reason why, that is what they do. Don't get caught up in the details and just play the games you like without passing judgment on the ones you don't.

GoldenPhoenixAugust 27, 2008

Quote from: Mr.

Quote from: Halbred

Christ, an anti-fanboyism article has quickly devolved into an argument dominated by fanboys.

This is my favorite part of this thread. Somehow Nintendo's business strategy vs. that of Sony and Microsoft has something to do with fanboyism.

I think this gets back to my core point. Who cares? Seriously. They all make systems that play games, regardless of the reason why, that is what they do. Don't get caught up in the details and just play the games you like without passing judgment on the ones you don't.

But it is FUN. It is odd though that arguing about who will be willing to stick through tough times the most equates to personal feelings regarding the consoles as they stand now. At the moment I love my 360, and I do enjoy what MS has done with things like the online interface, but even I have to begrudgingly admit that they have less interest in the success of the industry than someone who's ONLY business is this industry. As long as things start to grow in the gaming industry though I think things will be fine unless MS continues to lose more money than it profits from.

I actually think of this whole argument as similar to a stock portfolio. MS/Sony have a diverse portfolio with some solid investments, but if one of those starts dropping in value while they will hang onto it as long as possible it will become more beneficial for them to sell it. Nintendo on the other hand has one stock, and it is doing amazingly well, they have their life savings in this, now if the stock starts rapidly losing value they have no real choice but to hang onto it because their future is all tied up in it. Their hope is that it will rebound.

P.S. Your avatar makes me smile so much!

NinGurl69 *hugglesAugust 27, 2008

I CARE.

Because this is the electronic interweb, and you've all been entertaining me.

This is electronic entertainment.  It's also a flipside to Nintendo's present business, also electronic entertainment.

Nick DiMolaNick DiMola, Staff AlumnusAugust 27, 2008

Quote from: GoldenPhoenix

P.S. Your avatar makes me smile so much!

LOL I love Mr. Pants! Glad you like him too :P

Hey! Who edited my brilliant, Nobel-prize-winning post?

I didn't mean to insult anyone! I'm trying to bring arguments like this (which I see soooo often on these boards) to a sudden close.

D_AverageAugust 27, 2008

Quote from: NinGurl69

I CARE.

Because this is the electronic interweb, and you've all been entertaining me.

This is electronic entertainment.  It's also a flipside to Nintendo's present business, also electronic entertainment.

Life at its finest.....
http://media.collegepublisher.com/media/paper861/stills/bxzw461o.jpg

NinGurl69 *hugglesAugust 27, 2008

( '.')/

If Nintendo could add "forum discussion" to their business, the physical and virtual worlds would be on fire.

vuduAugust 27, 2008

Quote from: Mr.

This is my favorite part of this thread. Somehow Nintendo's business strategy vs. that of Sony and Microsoft has something to do with fanboyism.

I'll admit, I started it.  But Silks brought it to a whole new level.  :)

DeguelloJeff Shirley, Staff AlumnusAugust 27, 2008

Quote from: Halbred

Hey! Who edited my brilliant, Nobel-prize-winning post?

I didn't mean to insult anyone! I'm trying to bring arguments like this (which I see soooo often on these boards) to a sudden close.

Well.. you failed.

StogiAugust 27, 2008

Quote from: D_Average

What about Fast-Food Fanboys?  Is that OK???
http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/8742/gabenewellxg9.png

KFC FTW!!!

As a black man.........I wish I could swim in that bucket of chicken.

/stereotype

NinGurl69 *hugglesAugust 27, 2008

I'm having their CHUNKY CHICKEN POT PIE RIGHT NOW.

vuduAugust 27, 2008

Is that Gabe Newell?

wanderingAugust 28, 2008

Quote from: GoldenPhoenix

let me ask an extremely simple question about this. Who has more to lose if the gaming industry struggles? MS, Sony or Nintendo?

I have a question. What does it matter?

All of you: stop and ask yourselves what you want out of game companies. The answer is good games, right? Now, if that's the case, doesn't it make sense to support companies that give you good games, and stop supporting companies that don't? Why even worry about how much Sony and MS care about gaming? When buying games or consoles, shouldn't your only thought be "how are the games"? If you buy Nintendo systems exclusively, you may think you're sending the industry the message "I like Nintendo's style." But really, isn't the message actually "I don't want masterpieces like Shadow of the Colossus"?

DasmosAugust 28, 2008

Except Shadow of the Colossus was boring.

TheFleeceAugust 28, 2008



As a black man.........I wish I could swim in that bucket of chicken.

/stereotype

PlugabugzAugust 28, 2008

Real men drive smart cars. Everyone else is INSTA FAIL.

UltimatePartyBearAugust 28, 2008

Quote from: KashogiStogi

Quote from: D_Average

What about Fast-Food Fanboys?  Is that OK???


KFC FTW!!!

As a black man.........I wish I could swim in that bucket of chicken.

/stereotype

That reminds me.  It's been years since I moved out of my parents' house, and I never fulfilled my childhood fantasy of having a bucket of Kentucky Fried Chicken all to myself (no, not all at once) instead of having to fight over the best pieces, not to mention the paltry provisions of side orders.

D_AverageAugust 28, 2008

Quote from: UltimatePartyBear

Quote from: KashogiStogi

Quote from: D_Average

What about Fast-Food Fanboys?  Is that OK???


KFC FTW!!!

As a black man.........I wish I could swim in that bucket of chicken.

/stereotype

That reminds me.  It's been years since I moved out of my parents' house, and I never fulfilled my childhood fantasy of having a bucket of Kentucky Fried Chicken all to myself (no, not all at once) instead of having to fight over the best pieces, not to mention the paltry provisions of side orders.

This is a very tempting thing to do, I'll have to do it before my wife comes home.

KDR_11kAugust 28, 2008

The whole "they invested so much" argument is silly, it's like claiming you shouldn't fold when half your money is in the pot. If you have to fold then fold, you may have lost half your money but you still have the rest, if you throw it at a pot with no realistic chance of winning then you're just losing even more.

Quote from: Wandering

If you buy Nintendo systems exclusively, you may think you're sending the industry the message "I like Nintendo's style." But really, isn't the message actually "I don't want masterpieces like Shadow of the Colossus"?

Does it matter whether we send the message too? There's already enough people sending it if the sales numbers of SOTC are an indication. The game failed to sell and not because noone bought the system it's on.

NinGurl69 *hugglesAugust 28, 2008

"The game failed to sell and not because noone bought the system it's on."

ahahaha you beat me to it.  I would've phrased it like:

"I don't want masterpieces like Shadow of the Colossus"?
>> Neither did PS2 players lols unsophisticated casuals

StogiAugust 28, 2008

Quote from: TheFleece

As a black man.........I wish I could swim in that bucket of chicken.

/stereotype

Sorry to tell you, but that ain't chicken.

TheFleeceAugust 28, 2008

Quote from: KashogiStogi

Quote from: TheFleece

As a black man.........I wish I could swim in that bucket of chicken.

/stereotype

Sorry to tell you, but that ain't chicken.

What?! You talking **** about the Colonel?

UltimatePartyBearAugust 28, 2008

Are you one of those crazies who believes the company changed from "Kentucky Fried Chicken" to "KFC" because they couldn't legally call the product chicken anymore?  Because that's dumb.

TheFleeceAugust 28, 2008

Quote from: UltimatePartyBear

Are you one of those crazies who believes the company changed from "Kentucky Fried Chicken" to "KFC" because they couldn't legally call the product chicken anymore?  Because that's dumb.

It's not as dumb as you think. Go check your faqs and see if that equals what a chicken bird is. It's not rocket science, but total brain surgery on society. I'm not saying I wouldn't eat it, but I wouldn't call it chicken that's for sure.

NinGurl69 *hugglesAugust 28, 2008

I called it dinner last night. =D

StogiAugust 28, 2008

http://www.snopes.com/horrors/food/kfc.asp

I'm sure the Colonel would tear his wig out, but still, it's still chicken. And while they are most likely hormone/antibiotic injected, that doesn't change the fact that they are chickens. And more importantly, the fact that I fuckin love em.

Still, I'd rather fry my own chicken.

TheFleeceAugust 28, 2008

Quote from: KashogiStogi

Still, I'd rather fry my own chicken.

Yes. That's the move right there, but weren't we all flipping out about games a minute ago? This didn't turn into Fast Food World Report did it? I think it did. Can I have a two piece with a biscuit so I can get back home and level up some more plz k thnx.

ButteryPatAugust 28, 2008

KFC is no more in control of the meat in their restaurants than McDonald's is in control of the wheat in their buns. They BUY the chicken, they don't grow it themselves. From big-ass factory farms that are also responsible for pretty much every other form of chicken you eat. The chicken you buy at the grocery store, the chicken in your McNugget, so on and so forth. So, either we're all eating mutant birds all the time, or maybe it's just a stupid Urban Legend, along with Arby's meat being made of space worms, or liquid, or schools getting the same "grade" of meat as prisons.

So on the subject of fanboyism, I have to say, in the interest of disclosure, that I'm more or less what many would consider a Nintendo fanboy. I own a DS, a Wii and nothing else. I tend to choose Nintendo because I have a limited budget and they make the games I like to play. I'm not against other consoles, in fact I borrowed a friend's 360 for awhile so I could play GTA IV. It was a lot of fun. But nothing has convinced me that the HD consoles are more over-hyped and overrated than that game. Let me explain.

All people really ever seem to praise these new consoles for are creating games that are "so good" that it's not like a game anymore. It feels so real, the characters are so life-like, and of course, the graphics are fantastic. So when I actually got a chance to really get an in-depth look at a 360, I was struck by just how little things have changed in the new generation. Dumb A.I.? GTA IV's full of it. Clipping? Weird physics? Unresponsive, mushy control? All those little spots in a game that suck you right back in to the reality of the fact that you're playing a game still very much exist. And GTA IV didn't have nearly as many of those moments as some of the other supposed "reasons" for why I "need" a 360 or PS3. Assassin's Creed (man that game was disappointing) Gears Of War, and Halo 3 all had enough little technical hiccups going for them to make me truly believe that what we've got in this new generation is the same old problems we've all been irritated by since the N64, with some really pretty looking special effects and higher production value.

What this all means for me, though, is that while the Wii of course still retains all those little gripes, it does so while offering something unique, that can't be done in quite the same way on a computer, and all at a reasonable price. And that's the big kicker for me. So don't pity me, folks. I'll stick with my "Gamecube 1.5" (is that what the HD fanboys call it?) and my "gimmicky" little handheld while you guys can keep telling me how "real" Halo 4 or Gears Of War 2 or GTA V is, all while your computer partner runs into a wall and your dead girlfriend keeps calling you.  ;D

D_AverageAugust 28, 2008

Quote from: ButteryPat

KFC is no more in control of the meat in their restaurants than McDonald's is in control of the wheat in their buns.

Don't you mean their nuggets?
http://mooon15.jeeran.com/chicken_head_nugget1.jpg

NinGurl69 *hugglesAugust 28, 2008

Where does one find the nuggets on the chicken.

wanderingAugust 29, 2008

http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/forums/index.php?topic=26031

PlugabugzAugust 29, 2008

People people people. You've not lived until you've tried Morley's. Pity i have only ever seen them in south london.

OK, time to derail the derailing of the derailing of this thread.

Deg, you calling me "condescending and inflammatory" is the pot calling the kettle black if I've ever seen it.  Heck, other people on staff have noticed how personal you get with your insults.

I think that saying Nintendo was going to "cut and run" 5 years ago is as silly as saying Sony or Microsoft will today or in the near future.  They're entrenched as entrenched can be.  It's like saying Honda is going to drop their car division, or Apple is going to drop their iPod division.  Is it in the realm of possibility that that could that happen with Honda or Apple?  Absolutely.  Will that happen?  Hell no.  Now, Honda's cars and iPods are ridiculously successful so of course they won't get dropped, but the 360 and PS3 are both successful in their own right (not in terms of profitability, but definitely from a strategic standpoint; they also have millions of loyal users).

And again, Sega is one of the most mismanaged companies in the history of the gaming industry.  The only thing they proved is that, yes, if you release three failed consoles in a row and have terrible marketing, you won't be making consoles any more.

Nintendo's choice to go with cartridges and Sony's choice to go with Blu-Ray were both totally driven by self-interest.  Nintendo wanted to make money off of cartridges that they couldn't make with CDs, Sony wanted to push Blu-Ray.  Where they differ is the fact that Nintendo's move negatively impacted the experience of their customers.  It made companies like EA stop making games for the platform, and caused many developers to not even consider making games for it.  Blu-Ray's inclusion has certainly pushed Sony's agenda, but it hasn't hurt gamers either.

Quote from: Silks

OK, time to derail the derailing of the derailing of this thread.

Deg, you calling me "condescending and inflammatory" is the pot calling the kettle black if I've ever seen it.  Heck, other people on staff have noticed how personal you get with your insults.

I think that saying Nintendo was going to "cut and run" 5 years ago is as silly as saying Sony or Microsoft will today or in the near future.  They're entrenched as entrenched can be.  It's like saying Honda is going to drop their car division, or Apple is going to drop their iPod division.  Is it in the realm of possibility that that could that happen with Honda or Apple?  Absolutely.  Will that happen?  Hell no.  Now, Honda's cars and iPods are ridiculously successful so of course they won't get dropped, but the 360 and PS3 are both successful in their own right (not in terms of profitability, but definitely from a strategic standpoint; they also have millions of loyal users).

And again, Sega is one of the most mismanaged companies in the history of the gaming industry.  The only thing they proved is that, yes, if you release three failed consoles in a row and have terrible marketing, you won't be making consoles any more.

Nintendo's choice to go with cartridges and Sony's choice to go with Blu-Ray were both totally driven by self-interest.  Nintendo wanted to make money off of cartridges that they couldn't make with CDs, Sony wanted to push Blu-Ray.  Where they differ is the fact that Nintendo's move negatively impacted the experience of their customers.  It made companies like EA stop making games for the platform, and caused many developers to not even consider making games for it.  Blu-Ray's inclusion has certainly pushed Sony's agenda, but it hasn't hurt gamers either.

I'm going to not pay attention to any of the (mostly) good points in this post and instead bash Silks for (probably accidentally) implying that the Genesis was a failed console.

Nick DiMolaNick DiMola, Staff AlumnusAugust 30, 2008

Silks, I can't say I agree with you all the time, but I fully agree with you here. Anyone debating that Microsoft and Sony will be leaving gaming any time soon is crazy. They will modify their strategy to some degree next generation and figure out a way to stay competitive. I don't think either of them will go the way of Sega, seeing as management of their consoles and brands was handled quite poorly.

NinGurl69 *hugglesAugust 30, 2008

I don't think they'll leave the industry.  They'll just continue their failure trend, and fail the next time as well.

They'll probably alienate their so-called "core" audiences in the future, cuz they're poised to do so given the non-growth they've displayed since the 360 was launched.

More like niche'd into obscurity than niche'd out of existence (they're stubborn companies, afterall).

Quote from: insanolord

I'm going to not pay attention to any of the (mostly) good points in this post and instead bash Silks for (probably accidentally) implying that the Genesis was a failed console.

That was my bad.  I my mind I was thinking "everything but the Genesis".  For some reason I was lumping a third console into post-Genesis Sega.  Ummm...I meant the Game Gear!  Yeah!

Quote from: NinGurl69

I don't think they'll leave the industry.  They'll just continue their failure trend, and fail the next time as well.

They'll probably alienate their so-called "core" audiences in the future, cuz they're poised to do so given the non-growth they've displayed since the 360 was launched.

More like niche'd into obscurity than niche'd out of existence (they're stubborn companies, afterall).

That's the thing though, I don't see the 360 and PS3 as failures at all.  Well, the 360 has utterly failed in Japan, but it's doing robust business in the U.S., and Microsoft is making money off of it.  The PS3 is still a player in the Japanese marketplace, and it's gaining momentum in the U.S. as well.

This generation of consoles is interesting because while you already have a clear-cut winner (Nintendo), you don't have a clear-cut loser.  It's not like the PS3 is like the Saturn, TurboGrafx-16, or the Sega Master System.  According to Vee-Gee-charts (not that I believe them, but their numbers can't be too wildly inaccurate), the PS3 has sold 15m worldwide and the 360 has sold 20m worldwide.  Those are pretty massive userbases, certainly enough to make some money off of.  With userbases that big, neither company has any reason to pull the plug any time soon.

vuduAugust 31, 2008

Quote from: Silks

According to Vee-Gee-charts the PS3 has sold 15m worldwide and the 360 has sold 20m worldwide.  Those are pretty massive userbases, certainly enough to make some money off of.

You're forgetting that most 360 owners are on their second (or third) system and that the PS3 is the cheapest (and best) Blu-ray player on the market (so you can't necessarily consider all those owner relevant to the gaming user base).  Those numbers are massively inflated.

/end troll

Anybody that owns a PS3 is a potential game buyer.  Even if they just use it for Blu-Ray, Sony still makes money.  You're talking about game tie ratio, which is a different issue.  Since the PS3 is multipurpose, you can't use "game purchases"as the only success criteria.  It's a big one, but not the only one.

As for the 360, I'm assuming you mean people that moved from a Pro to an Elite.  I can see your point, but those Pro sales didn't just disappear when the Elite was bought.  Besides, the Pro consoles that were sold or traded in on an Elite likely went to somebody who is now buying 360 games, and is part of the active userbase.

You could say Nintendo DS sales are similarly inflated, since there are plenty of double-dippers in that userbase too.

Flames_of_chaosLukasz Balicki, Staff AlumnusAugust 31, 2008

Quote from: Silks

Anybody that owns a PS3 is a potential game buyer.  Even if they just use it for Blu-Ray, Sony still makes money.  You're talking about game tie ratio, which is a different issue.  Since the PS3 is multipurpose, you can't use "game purchases"as the only success criteria.  It's a big one, but not the only one.

As for the 360, I'm assuming you mean people that moved from a Pro to an Elite.  I can see your point, but those Pro sales didn't just disappear when the Elite was bought.  Besides, the Pro consoles that were sold or traded in on an Elite likely went to somebody who is now buying 360 games, and is part of the active userbase.

You could say Nintendo DS sales are similarly inflated, since there are plenty of double-dippers in that userbase too.

Every console is bound to double dipping but the Wii is still the only platform this gen that has only 1 SKU. And every other platform has either a hardware revision and more than one SKU (Primarily Sony and MS).

But while there are a lot of 360 owners that are on their 2nd or 3rd 360 4 out of 5 people probably got theirs replaced by Microsoft so it isn't really fair to say that a lot of them bought doubles since a refurbished unit provided by Microsoft does not count as a sale.

KDR_11kAugust 31, 2008

Quote from: Flames_of_chaos

a refurbished unit provided by Microsoft does not count as a sale.

I wouldn't be so sure about that, MS loves statistics and I wouldn't put it beyond them to pad their numbers like that.

ButteryPatSeptember 01, 2008

Quote from: Silks

That's the thing though, I don't see the 360 and PS3 as failures at all.  Well, the 360 has utterly failed in Japan, but it's doing robust business in the U.S., and Microsoft is making money off of it.  The PS3 is still a player in the Japanese marketplace, and it's gaining momentum in the U.S. as well.

This whole aspect is indicative of how the whole "console wars" thing is so overhyped and imaginary. It's like last generation, where Nintendo was making a ton of money on the Gamecube and sold quite a few of them, but were seen as a "failure" because of stupid console wars statistics. There were even articles questioning whether or not Nintendo would "survive". You've sort of got that now with the PS3. It hasn't sold nearly what it should've, and Sony has given up a lot of ground to Nintendo, but that doesn't make the system a failure. Just a disappointment and a hiccup for the suits and the investors. It will probably do just fine as people start making the Blu-Ray move, gets more marquee titles, and comes down in price more. Microsoft's success is as overinflated by the gaming press as usual, this generation because it's the console the vast majority of them seem biased toward (don't lie), and last generation because they were a new player in the industry that managed to carve out a stake for themselves, which was impressive. The Wii, I'm still told to believe, will be exposed as a "fad" (anytime now, right guys?) and has outdated hardware, which I think is pretty funny, as one of the 360's selling point (HD DVD) is already basically useless, and isn't going to get less useless with time. Oh yeah, and if Game Informer is to be believed, it's like Atari 2600 in that it has too many bad games, and will bring doom and DESTROY THE GAME INDUSTRY AS WE KNOW IT!!! Laaammmee. Not to mention a true testament to the fact that everything always looks better when you're remembering it 30 years later, as I'm pretty sure dog food companies and Quaker Oats aren't making Wii games.

The bottom line is that there really isn't some cutthroat "console war" going on anywhere. But "the industry is constantly growing and is allowing a lot of companies to thrive and sell systems" just isn't as inflammatory and exciting to talk about than who's "failing" and "winning" and who may not "survive" into the next generation.

EDIT:

Okay I've got to do some "bad simile" busting here:

Quote from: Silks

I think that saying Nintendo was going to "cut and run" 5 years ago is as silly as saying Sony or Microsoft will today or in the near future. They're entrenched as entrenched can be.  It's like saying Honda is going to drop their car division, or Apple is going to drop their iPod division.

This just doesn't work. Again, Honda is a car company. I'm not an expert on them, so I won't say that categorically the only thing they're involved in is cars. But I'm pretty sure it is, and if it's not, I'm sure they don't make nearly as much money anywhere else than they do with cars. Apple does make other products, and they're a better example of what you're going for, but like you said, the iPod is ridiculously successful. It's a mainstay of pop culture now. It's on a much higher level than either the 360 or PS3. It would be moronic to remove something making money hand-over-fist. But neither the PS3 or 360 IS making that kind of money. You obscure your opponent's point with the strawman that they aren't just going to leave games "today or in the near future". But as you already know, that wasn't the point. The fact is that both companies are high profile, publicly traded companies that have made a lot of money in other things besides games for a long time, and have a bunch of shareholders to appease. The fact is that if the line under "Games Division" is red for too long, the shareholders get impatient and all the justification of the potential of games for growth won't convince them that the division isn't ineffective. I'm not saying they'll leave soon, in fact I think they're both in for awhile at least, but you just can't argue that they're in the same boat or "just as invested" as Nintendo. That simply isn't an argument you can win.

KDR_11kSeptember 01, 2008

I think the PS3 is a failure as a followup to the PS2, it's a success as a way of forcing BluRay on people but it lost a lot of the market the PS2 had. Going from having a marketshare over 50% to being the weakest player in the market is a failure.

According to their website, Honda also makes ATVs, Engines, Jets, Home Power Units, Generators, Lawnmowers, Tillers, Trimmers, Motorcycles, Outboard Motors for boats, Jetskis, Pumps, Scooters, and Snowblowers.  They're more of an "engine" company than a car company, when it comes down to it, but they have their hands in all types of markets.

My point is that while Nintendo is a video game company right now, there's nothing that says they're going to be a video game company forever, either.  They're a big Japanese corporation just like Sony, and could change direction at any time.  In fact, some might say they already have, since they've pretty much stopped catering to the "core" gaming audience (or at least the audience that they catered to with the SNES, N64, and GameCube) because there isn't any money in it.  In other words, they're chasing the money, which is exactly what they did when they entered the business in the first place.

Nintendo is just too damn good at making money in the video game sector to bother doing anything else, but that doesn't mean it's a 100% impossibility that they'll leave the game industry.  Hiroshi Yamauchi railed against the high cost of developing games years ago, not because he cared about the art of making video games, but because as a businessman he was worried about the effect of spiraling costs on his bottom line.

The PS3 has failed to maintain the market share established by the PS2, absolutely.  But I disagree that it's an outright failure, since plenty of people own PS3s, developers are still making games for it, nobody has abandoned it, and it's still relevant in the marketplace.  In other words, there's still money in the PS3 business.  EA isn't bailing on it quite yet.

I'm not arguing that the PS3 is a failure because it's too early to make a judgment like that, but you can't compare calling the GameCube a failure for being in last place to calling the PS3 a failure because it's in last place. Nintendo made money on (almost) every Cube they sold, and I'm pretty sure made more profit last generation than either of their competitors (they didn't take in anywhere near as much money, but they didn't lose anywhere near as much either). Sony, on the other hand, is hemorrhaging money with the PS3. According to launch figures they were losing over $100 on every $600 PS3 they sold. Now that's probably come down a bit since then, but they're selling PS3s for $400 now.

ArbokSeptember 01, 2008

Quote from: Silks

In fact, some might say they already have, since they've pretty much stopped catering to the "core" gaming audience (or at least the audience that they catered to with the SNES, N64, and GameCube) because there isn't any money in it.

Someone better tell Nintendo to stop all production on Mario Kart and Smash Bros now, since Nintendo shouldn't be caring about that audience and there seems to be no money left to warrant producing additional copies. I mean, when was the last time a Mario Kart was even in the top sales charts anywhere?

MarioSeptember 01, 2008

A good way to compare Honda to Sony is their F1 division as their games division. They are pretty much dead last, despite pouring billions of dollars into it, and buying staff from other F1 teams.

ButteryPatSeptember 02, 2008

Quote from: KDR_11k

I think the PS3 is a failure as a followup to the PS2, it's a success as a way of forcing BluRay on people but it lost a lot of the market the PS2 had. Going from having a marketshare over 50% to being the weakest player in the market is a failure.

That's definitely true for now at least. There's no denying that the PS3 was a big mistake on multiple fronts. It was a product of the simple arrogant notion that everybody who bought a PS2 would buy a PS3, lockstep, no questions asked. All they had to do was say "look at the superior tech!" and that would be enough. They pretty much eschewed all the common knowledge of the video game industry (software sells hardware, superior hardware on it's own won't sell) because they thought they could manipulate the entire industry by the grace of their hand. It was a PR disaster, and Sony has nobody to blame for it but themselves. But, there's still potential. They've got the format on their side, price cuts and marquee titles will continue to come, and I could definitely see it making money by the time this cycle is over, particularly if we're to believe the analysts that this cycle will last longer than previous ones.

Quote from: Mario

A good way to compare Honda to Sony is their F1 division as their games division. They are pretty much dead last, despite pouring billions of dollars into it, and buying staff from other F1 teams.

This is a much better analogy. See, Silks? It's not that people are saying that "Honda will stop making cars" it's more like saying "if Honda's F1 division continues racking up deficits for a long time, the board of executives could become tired of waiting for it to deliver on promises and decide it's not worth pursuing any longer". And that doesn't sound so crazy, does it?

Nick DiMolaNick DiMola, Staff AlumnusSeptember 02, 2008

The PS3 isn't a failure or anywhere near a failure. It is impossible to draw a proper analogy for the PS3 because it isn't really relegated to a single part of Sony. The PS3 for all intents and purposes was created to sell Blu-Ray. Blu-Ray sells movies, and more importantly, Blu-Ray sells expensive HDTVs; an industry where Sony's name is equated with luxury and quality.

The PS3 is already a booming success for Sony in that they secured the format war and will continue to sell HDTVs and Blu-Ray movies. Much like the PS2 brought DVDs mainstream success, so will the PS3 especially as the cost of the system moves down. Don't kid yourselves, the PS3 was priced high to accommodate the Blu-Ray player and that's it. Sony knew that they would lose customers (I'm not sure they thought they would lose as much as they did to Nintendo), but they were willing to do so in order to perk up their other divisions which weren't doing quite as well as their game division was doing.

In terms of purely gaming the PS3 is a hiccup for Sony. The next console, will undoubtedly be more competitively priced and they will make strides to pick up some of their lost ground. Of course, Blu-Ray will be cheaper then so the PS4 won't suffer from those costs.

Also keep in mind that the PSP has been very successful and the money made there is definitely propping up their bottom line in the game department. Oh and of course the PS2 which is still selling well and making Sony some great cash.

UltimatePartyBearSeptember 02, 2008

I can feel the pain of the PS3 fans.  It's actually my similar experience as a Nintendo fan that makes me kind of want one.  I see a lot of parallels between the PS3 and the N64.  I remember the N64 as a bit of a misstep that ended up having some of the best games ever, and I don't think that's a coincidence.  Nintendo was in rare form in those days in response to losing support in all corners.  The PS3 is definitely a misstep, though it remains to be seen whether Sony is capable of building a library of excellent exclusives.  Honestly, I expect the games to come from third parties for the most part.  I think the 360's failure in Japan should help with that, and there are indeed a couple of Japanese PS3 games on the horizon that have my interest.

On the other hand, the PS3 could wind up more like the Atari 5200.  Remember that one?  Exactly.  (Note: not an exact comparison.)

The whole "PS3 doesn't have good exclusives" deal is totally a perception issue.  In reality, the PS3 has plenty of great exclusives (Warhawk, Resistance, Uncharted, MGS4, MLB 08, Motorstorm, a slew of excellent games on PSN, etc.) but they aren't from recognizable franchises.  On top of that, Sony hasn't really done anything to promote them, and people aren't going to buy what they don't know anything about.  I'd compare the best PS3 games to Wii titles like Zack & Wiki or Boom Blox...great games but nobody knows anything about them, and nobody's going to take a chance on what they don't know unless it gets extensive promotion.

You can't compare the N64 to the PS3.  For instance, the N64 had less than 400 games released in its entire lifetime, while the PS3 will like have that many games available by the end of this year.  Heck, Playstation Network will have 100 games by next year, and that's just PS3 content.  The PS3 has widespread developer support, and every multi-platform game out there is released for it as well as the 360.

You can say that the PS3 is a failure when compared to PS2, but GameCube is also a failure when compared to Wii.  It goes both ways.  Also, Nick is right when he says that the PS3 is a hiccup for Sony.  The PS3 put Sony in the red to the tune of something like $3 Billion, but saying that that will run them out of the business is pretty silly when they made about $10 BAZILLION on the PS2.

UltimatePartyBearSeptember 02, 2008

Quote from: Silks

The whole "PS3 doesn't have good exclusives" deal is totally a perception issue.  In reality, the PS3 has plenty of great exclusives (Warhawk, Resistance, Uncharted, MGS4, MLB 08, Motorstorm, a slew of excellent games on PSN, etc.)

I know about all those, but the higher price of the console means the list needs to get longer, especially when personal tastes enter the equation and cut the list in half.  I should note that I got my N64 for $80 thanks to a special promotion, so it didn't take as much to convince me.

Quote:

You can't compare the N64 to the PS3.

Sure I can.  The only way it could be a perfect comparison would be if I was comparing an N64 to another N64.  I'm just saying that it's a humbling experience that may require extraordinary effort to overcome, and that extraordinary effort can only be good for gamers.  I am not yet convinced $400 worth, but I'm hopeful.

Quote:

You can say that the PS3 is a failure when compared to PS2, but GameCube is also a failure when compared to Wii.  It goes both ways.  Also, Nick is right when he says that the PS3 is a hiccup for Sony.  The PS3 put Sony in the red to the tune of something like $3 Billion, but saying that that will run them out of the business is pretty silly when they made about $10 BAZILLION on the PS2.

You're seeing conspiracies everywhere you look, apparently, because I haven't said anything about that.  You may have read too much into my 5200 comment, I guess, but I was just grasping for another console that was a disappointing successor to a wildly successful console.  Incidentally, time flows in one direction from a human perspective, so it would behoove you to not make comparisons that require a Tralfamadorian viewpoint.  :)

NinGurl69 *hugglesSeptember 02, 2008

PS3 isn't a failure, it's just failing. I AIN'T DRUNK, I'M JUST DRINKIN'

1)  PS3 is not the market leader.  According to the "console war" defined by game journalists in the past decade, if you're not winning, you're losing.

2)  PS3 is not even the "HD" leader.  Xbox 360 still maintains a lead, keeping PS3 from appearing as the definitive HD figurehead.

3)  PS3 is in last place.  It's the place that comes after non-first-place positions.

4)  PS3 is losing to Wii, a last-gen machine.  On some occaisions, it was also losing to another last-gen-machine, the PS2.

5)  PS3 is not making money.  GameCube was a last-place-failure, but it put extra money in Nintendo's gutted piglet bank (as opposed to filling in gaps that used to hold money).  PS3 isn't making money until its debts are paid.

6)  PS3 is not living up to PS2's impression of success.  PS3 is not living up to the "PlayStation" name and legacy of success.  PS3 is competing with N64's performance, which is lol-worthy considering the "extensive" game library and "multitude of high end" multimedia features the PS3 has over the N64 in a launch-aligned comparison.  oi, I just compared the two


7)  The market leader is not "HD".  Despite the R&D, the marketing, the initial favoritism, the "superior tech", features/functionality and the promises of taking games to new heights, a next-gen machine is not in the lead.  PS3 was heavily invested, analyzed, favored, expected to be THAT next-gen leader.

8)  HD/Next-gen machine sales are underperforming compared to their last-gen predecessors.  It is a premature yet visible indicator that their potential success has been capped; worse, on the flaccid path to market shrinkage.  THIS is the climate the PS3 is supposed to thrive in and taked the predicted lead by the end of 2008?  2009?  2011?

9)  GTA IV didn't save gaming.  MGS4 didn't save gaming.  You can't save the PS3 without saving gaming.  *Insert next title to save gaming* _____

10)  ``HOW BAD ARE THINGS FOR SONY?`` "So bad it has to give its next "best game" away for free, as a bribe, to shift some more of those useless Blu-ray machines before the receivers are called in."  ... ... "So that's losing money on the hardware AND giving away the only game people might want this Christmas for free? This is Business 3.0!"  -- UK: Resistance


Mind you these are more along the lines of indicators rather than reasons.

DeguelloJeff Shirley, Staff AlumnusSeptember 02, 2008

Quote from: Silks

OK, time to derail the derailing of the derailing of this thread.

Deg, you calling me "condescending and inflammatory" is the pot calling the kettle black if I've ever seen it.  Heck, other people on staff have noticed how personal you get with your insults.

Hey if I only tick you off it's better than you trolling and flaming the entire board, calling them children, morons, uneducated, unserious, because they don't like the same games you do and suspecting THEM of fanboyism.  What. Ever.

Quote:

I think that saying Nintendo was going to "cut and run" 5 years ago is as silly as saying Sony or Microsoft will today or in the near future.  They're entrenched as entrenched can be.  It's like saying Honda is going to drop their car division, or Apple is going to drop their iPod division.  Is it in the realm of possibility that that could that happen with Honda or Apple?  Absolutely.  Will that happen?  Hell no.  Now, Honda's cars and iPods are ridiculously successful so of course they won't get dropped, but the 360 and PS3 are both successful in their own right (not in terms of profitability, but definitely from a strategic standpoint; they also have millions of loyal users).

The thing is I never said that Sony and MS WILL pull out.  They are just more likely to because 1) They are losing a lot of money in this industry and 2) It's not really getting them anywhere other than "having a lot of loyal fans."  Then you use two companies that are making a lot of profit, Honda off cars and Apple off iPods, and say that they are similar to Sony and MS.  Being "entrenched" means nothing if keep bringing in red numbers and fail to grow.  As an example, Stage6, a popular DivX service meant to challenge Youtube through high quality video.  They had 17.4 million monthly visitors, and were going strong. Then suddenly and unexpectedly to their loyal fans, they shut the service down, citing hemorrhaging money costs.  This all despite their assertion that they would "live forever." (and speaking of which, that number is more than two million more than "loyal PS3 owners")

Quote:

And again, Sega is one of the most mismanaged companies in the history of the gaming industry.  The only thing they proved is that, yes, if you release three failed consoles in a row and have terrible marketing, you won't be making consoles any more.

So Microsoft has one more in them and Sony has two more?  I don't think you grasp the realities of the situation concerning Microsoft and Sony.  Microsoft has not made one red cent in this industry.  They haven't even made one cent this Generation, although they have lost less.  Somehow they'll have to justify a third to MONEY people and MONEY people don't care about "Loyal fans."  Wanna know the REAL "hardcore abandoners?"  Try investors.

And just to point out about Sony.  In the last TWO years, they have squandered their ENTIRE profits from the last TEN.  that means... PS1, FFVII, FFVIII, FFIX, MGS, GT, GT2, PS2, God of War, FFX, FFXI, FFXII, MGS2, MGS3, GTA III, GTA VC, GTA SA, Every Madden and every and all things in between... *pfft* gone.  And they're still losing money.  This could even erase their gains from their SONY IMAGESOFT days.  And this is with them selling approx. 42 million hardware units (PSP and PS3), and having multiple million sellers.  It would take a miracle to reverse Sony's fortunes, and no amount of magazine reviews can lead the majority to water here.

Quote:

Nintendo's choice to go with cartridges and Sony's choice to go with Blu-Ray were both totally driven by self-interest.  Nintendo wanted to make money off of cartridges that they couldn't make with CDs, Sony wanted to push Blu-Ray.  Where they differ is the fact that Nintendo's move negatively impacted the experience of their customers.  It made companies like EA stop making games for the platform, and caused many developers to not even consider making games for it.  Blu-Ray's inclusion has certainly pushed Sony's agenda, but it hasn't hurt gamers either.

Cartridges actually drove user experience up.  Many gamers praised it for the elimination of long loading times which were worse then than they are now.  And you are correct, developers did shy away from the N64, but that had little to do with the user experience.  In fact it took a great long while before the developers actually made any PS1 games worth owning, different medium or not.  And counterpoised, I'd say Blu-Ray drove up unit costs greatly and prohibited a great many of the PS2 owners who wanted to upgrade and made them either hesitant or unable to purchase it.  I'd say that wrecks the user experience and I don't know if 3rd parties like it or not.

Funny how this "Cart vs. CD" stuff doesn't apply to the DS and the PSP.  Shouldn't the PSP just stomp the guts out of the DS?  I mean the DS cards will, maybe, one day, hold 1GB.  Maybe.  UMD's hold 1.9 Gigs.  Day one.  Why is this not working here?  I think it's clear that the third parties of old were trying to simply get out from under Nintendo at the time and found Sony a comfortable shelter.  They did it because it was cheaper.  Imagine that!  Several PS1 games, including some fot he megablockbusters, were made for the PS1 because they had a large userbase and it was cheaper to do so than make games on the N64 with it's higher graphical demands.  Wonder if something similar will happen in the future?

And Kudos for proving that Sony and MS will stay in the games business because one day in the future, Nintendo might possibly do something else.  So the permanence of the market is proven by its impermanence?  Do you have any idea what you are saying?  Sony and MS will stay in this one because Nintendo might enter another?  What?

Quote from: Deguello

Hey if I only tick you off it's better than you trolling and flaming the entire board, calling them children, morons, uneducated, unserious, because they don't like the same games you do and suspecting THEM of fanboyism.  What. Ever.

I did that in one thread and I admitted it, but if you insist on trolling me for eternity then knock yourself out.

Quote from: Deguello

The thing is I never said that Sony and MS WILL pull out.  They are just more likely to because 1) They are losing a lot of money in this industry and 2) It's not really getting them anywhere other than "having a lot of loyal fans."  Then you use two companies that are making a lot of profit, Honda off cars and Apple off iPods, and say that they are similar to Sony and MS.  Being "entrenched" means nothing if keep bringing in red numbers and fail to grow.  As an example, Stage6, a popular DivX service meant to challenge Youtube through high quality video.  They had 17.4 million monthly visitors, and were going strong. Then suddenly and unexpectedly to their loyal fans, they shut the service down, citing hemorrhaging money costs.  This all despite their assertion that they would "live forever." (and speaking of which, that number is more than two million more than "loyal PS3 owners")

You'll certainly see Sony switch things up next generation, and not rely as heavily on the technical side of things.  They simply packed too much in the box when they didn't need to (the fact that they yanked a bunch of features in later PS3s is proof of that).  I still think they'll be tech leaders though...it's their niche, like Nintendo's niche is low-priced and mass-market.

And I don't think you can compare a video game company to a website...it's a lot harder for Sony and Microsoft to "pull the plug" than Stage6.  With a website the site IS the product - you don't have to support customers for the next five years.

Quote from: Deguello

So Microsoft has one more in them and Sony has two more?  I don't think you grasp the realities of the situation concerning Microsoft and Sony.  Microsoft has not made one red cent in this industry.  They haven't even made one cent this Generation, although they have lost less.  Somehow they'll have to justify a third to MONEY people and MONEY people don't care about "Loyal fans."  Wanna know the REAL "hardcore abandoners?"  Try investors.

And just to point out about Sony.  In the last TWO years, they have squandered their ENTIRE profits from the last TEN.  that means... PS1, FFVII, FFVIII, FFIX, MGS, GT, GT2, PS2, God of War, FFX, FFXI, FFXII, MGS2, MGS3, GTA III, GTA VC, GTA SA, Every Madden and every and all things in between... *pfft* gone.  And they're still losing money.  This could even erase their gains from their SONY IMAGESOFT days.  And this is with them selling approx. 42 million hardware units (PSP and PS3), and having multiple million sellers.  It would take a miracle to reverse Sony's fortunes, and no amount of magazine reviews can lead the majority to water here.

I think Sony will be fine.  If I was Microsoft I'd be worried, because beyond Xbox Live and Gears of War 2 I don't think they have many tricks up their sleeve.

Quote from: Deguello

Cartridges actually drove user experience up.  Many gamers praised it for the elimination of long loading times which were worse then than they are now.  And you are correct, developers did shy away from the N64, but that had little to do with the user experience.  In fact it took a great long while before the developers actually made any PS1 games worth owning, different medium or not.  And counterpoised, I'd say Blu-Ray drove up unit costs greatly and prohibited a great many of the PS2 owners who wanted to upgrade and made them either hesitant or unable to purchase it.  I'd say that wrecks the user experience and I don't know if 3rd parties like it or not.

I wasn't talking about load times.  I was talking about the effect that cartridges had on third-party relations, causing developers to bail only AFTER people had already bought the console.  Blu-Ray driving up the cost of the PS3 prevented people from buying it, but  they didn't spend any money.  The fact that the N64 used cartridges caused companies like EA to bail in the middle of the console's life cycle, essentially pulling the rug out from under gamers that assumed the console would have an acceptable amount of third-party support.

Quote from: Deguello

Funny how this "Cart vs. CD" stuff doesn't apply to the DS and the PSP.  Shouldn't the PSP just stomp the guts out of the DS?  I mean the DS cards will, maybe, one day, hold 1GB.  Maybe.  UMD's hold 1.9 Gigs.  Day one.  Why is this not working here?  I think it's clear that the third parties of old were trying to simply get out from under Nintendo at the time and found Sony a comfortable shelter.  They did it because it was cheaper.  Imagine that!  Several PS1 games, including some fot he megablockbusters, were made for the PS1 because they had a large userbase and it was cheaper to do so than make games on the N64 with it's higher graphical demands.  Wonder if something similar will happen in the future?

I don't think it applies because those DS cartridges likely cost a heck of a lot less to create in 2008 than the N64 cartridges did in 1996.  I'm sure that Nintendo has revised their royalty structure due to the N64 debacle, as well.  And I doubt that PS1 were much cheaper to develop than N64 games, either.

Quote from: Deguello

And Kudos for proving that Sony and MS will stay in the games business because one day in the future, Nintendo might possibly do something else.  So the permanence of the market is proven by its impermanence?  Do you have any idea what you are saying?  Sony and MS will stay in this one because Nintendo might enter another?  What?

Yeah, as a matter of fact I do know what I'm saying.  I'm saying not to put Nintendo a pedestal, because they got into the industry for the same reasons that Sony and Microsoft did, and can exit the same way you claim Sony and Microsoft can.  If there's one thing that's permanent in the video game industry, it's impermanence.  At one time Atari was just like Nintendo - on top of the world and insurmountable.  Now they're all but gone.

MarioSeptember 03, 2008

Quote:

I still think they'll be tech leaders though...it's their niche, like Nintendo's niche is low-priced and mass-market.

Mass market is a niche? LOL. Also isn't this the first time in history the Sony platform has been "tech leader"? How is that a trend?

ArbokSeptember 04, 2008

Quote from: Mario

Mass market is a niche? LOL. Also isn't this the first time in history the Sony platform has been "tech leader"? How is that a trend?

I think this is what we call...
http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/4852/checkmate3wd9.jpg

Infernal MonkeySeptember 04, 2008

Quote from: Mr.

Of course this is a Nintendo driven website, so the preference of most readers of the site is Nintendo.

Ahahahaha

Quote from: Mario

Quote:

I still think they'll be tech leaders though...it's their niche, like Nintendo's niche is low-priced and mass-market.

Mass market is a niche? LOL. Also isn't this the first time in history the Sony platform has been "tech leader"? How is that a trend?

I mean the future.  I think Nintendo will continue its current "sacrifice power for price" approach, while Sony will have better tech, but eschew the needless bells and whistles that plagued the PS3's early years.  I think PS4 will be more stripped-down in that department.  Sony won't out-Nintendo Nintendo, so they'll need better technology and an appeal to gamers with "higher-end" audio/video setups as their differentiator.

"Niche" was probably the wrong word..."specialty" is probably better.  Everybody's ultimately aiming for the mass market, but at this point it's pretty obvious that Nintendo is catering to that market almost exclusively.

Quote from: Silks

Everybody's ultimately aiming for the mass market, but at this point it's pretty obvious that Nintendo is catering to that market almost exclusively.

Heh. I love the English language. Nintendo is exclusively catering to the most people?

NinGurl69 *hugglesSeptember 04, 2008

A business strategy like that is unheard of!

OK, Nintendo is catering to 5-Year-Olds, Soccer Moms, and Grandmas.  Sony is catering to adult gamers with discerning tastes, like myself.

;D

Nail on the head! :-D

NinGurl69 *hugglesSeptember 04, 2008

And with your new understanding, there's no confusion as to why PS3 is failing.

DeguelloJeff Shirley, Staff AlumnusSeptember 04, 2008

Quote:

I did that in one thread and I admitted it, but if you insist on trolling me for eternity then knock yourself out.

Simply stating what you said before and comparing it to what you say now is not "trolling" you.  Trolling is jumping up and saying the console of choice for the majority of the forum is for kids, soccer moms, and "grandpas" and the one you seem to like better is for "discerning adults."  You just keep getting into threads where your words come back to bite.

Quote:

I wasn't talking about load times.  I was talking about the effect that cartridges had on third-party relations, causing developers to bail only AFTER people had already bought the console.  Blu-Ray driving up the cost of the PS3 prevented people from buying it, but  they didn't spend any money.  The fact that the N64 used cartridges caused companies like EA to bail in the middle of the console's life cycle, essentially pulling the rug out from under gamers that assumed the console would have an acceptable amount of third-party support.

The cartridges had little to do with third party relations.  Cart vs. CD was just a convenient reason that was palatable to the burgeoning internet at the time.  It was actually the royalty fees AND the fact that the PS1 had a very hefty lead on the N64 by the time it released.    Believe me, market leadership will start meaning a whole lot in the near future.

Quote:

I don't think it applies because those DS cartridges likely cost a heck of a lot less to create in 2008 than the N64 cartridges did in 1996.  I'm sure that Nintendo has revised their royalty structure due to the N64 debacle, as well.  And I doubt that PS1 were much cheaper to develop than N64 games, either.

Here's where you actually contradict yourself.  Cart vs. CD SHOULD be working here.  But isn't.  It is actually the simple fact that the DS is the market leader by a wide margin and this is coupled with the PSP's horrible game ratio, meaning people are buying PSP's and not buying games, which is probably not conducive to winning over third party support.  And PS1 games were certainly cheaper to make because the graphical demands were very low.  While the N64 was pushing boundaries, the PS1 stood behind it every step of the way looking like a fossil.  Analysts expected that any day now the N64 would win because of graphical graphics.  Didn't happen, and the PS1 zoomed ahead.

Quote:

Yeah, as a matter of fact I do know what I'm saying.  I'm saying not to put Nintendo a pedestal, because they got into the industry for the same reasons that Sony and Microsoft did, and can exit the same way you claim Sony and Microsoft can.  If there's one thing that's permanent in the video game industry, it's impermanence.  At one time Atari was just like Nintendo - on top of the world and insurmountable.  Now they're all but gone.

Yes, Nintendo is in to make the money.  So is MS and Sony.  However the makeup of the companies is what sets them apart.  The only thing Nintendo does is make games, it's mostly all they've ever done, ever.  Their company as a whole is dwarfed by Sony and MS's (although they probably are bigger than their game divisions.)  Nobody has been put up on a pedestal by simply stating the facts about the companies and the likelihood of them pulling out, of which Nintendo's is the least because of their continued profitability even in tough times and cash-flushed-ness, and Sony and MS's is greater, because of their current profit problems and missed goals, no matter what magazine reviewers say about the subjective quality of their games nor the passion of the people involved on the game side.

And each of the companies that left the hardware industry left doing SMART AND INNOVATIVE THINGS, not many were that "inept."  No, not even Sega.  The Dreamcast was the first console with a very robust online service (and DLC.)  They attempted to take Madden head-on, which was a smart move because at the time Madden was weak.  All of the "ineptitude" was attributed AFTER they left.  And look how it will apply to this generation.  Blu-Ray (while good for Sony until another Disc Format comes out) drove the price of the PS3 up greatly.  They tried aping Nintendo with the Sixaxis, discontinued that, re-issuing the rumble controller.  They keep screwing around with the basic model of the PS3, which greatly confuses the marketplace (MS for this too).  These will all be considered "inept" should Sony continue to flail about and lose another billion.

Quote:

OK, Nintendo is catering to 5-Year-Olds, Soccer Moms, and Grandmas.  Sony is catering to adult gamers with discerning tastes, like myself.

I know this was a joke, but I'll bet ya that the Wii will end up with the most "discerning adults" by the end of it.  For example, the PSP is obviously catering to the 18-29 male demographic, but they don't have the most males 18-29.  DS does.  The DS went through such a "identity crisis" of catering to "girls and grandpas" (with NWR piling on) and survived and is the darling of industry, the REAL Moneymaker, and will soon the best console ever released, just by the sheer number of new, different, and/or awesome titles (and MOUNDS and MOUNDS of shovelware timid third parties released because they were so sure the graphically superior PSP would win) that came out for it, no matter what demographic it's more-meaningful E3 shows were aimed at (hint: Nintendogs was the major theme for the DS in 2005.  And Electroplankton.  And everything else got a blurb)

Quote from: Deguello

Quote:

OK, Nintendo is catering to 5-Year-Olds, Soccer Moms, and Grandmas.  Sony is catering to adult gamers with discerning tastes, like myself.

I know this was a joke, but I'll bet ya that the Wii will end up with the most "discerning adults" by the end of it.  For example, the PSP is obviously catering to the 18-29 male demographic, but they don't have the most males 18-29.  DS does.  The DS went through such a "identity crisis" of catering to "girls and grandpas" (with NWR piling on) and survived and is the darling of industry, the REAL Moneymaker, and will soon the best console ever released, just by the sheer number of new, different, and/or awesome titles (and MOUNDS and MOUNDS of shovelware timid third parties released because they were so sure the graphically superior PSP would win) that came out for it, no matter what demographic it's more-meaningful E3 shows were aimed at (hint: Nintendogs was the major theme for the DS in 2005.  And Electroplankton.  And everything else got a blurb)

It's ironic and amazing at the same time, ain't it?

I think that the DS is moving over to "girls and grandpas" right now, what with Nintendo stating that something like 46% of DS users are now female.  I never associated the "Nintendogs period" with a specific  aim at females.  If anything, I think that game was undermarketed, and wasn't targeted at females enough.  When I saw the commercial with Carrie Underwood playing Nintendogs on her DS, I wondered what took Nintendo so long.

What I've always liked about the DS is that it's always had a healthy quantity of games to choose from across all genres (ever since Christmas 2005, of course).  With the DS there's never been a point at which I've said, "There are no games that interest me on this platform".  There's always something to look forward to on the DS in terms of my tastes, whether it's Bangai-O Spirits, KORG DS-10, Moon, or Tecmo Bowl.  On Wii I honestly can't name one announced game that I even care about...MadWorld intrigues me, but like No More Heroes, if I never played it I wouldn't feel like I missed out.

Maybe at some point Wii will start to get the high-quality niche titles that I crave, but I'm skeptical.  I haven't seen any indication of that happening on WiiWare, and I can't see developers taking a chance on making something really obscure on Wii when they could just as easily make money with another Carnival Games.  I hope to God that isn't the case, but again, I'm skeptical.

Quote from: Silks

OK, Nintendo is catering to 5-Year-Olds, Soccer Moms, and Grandmas.  Sony is catering to adult gamers with discerning tastes, like myself.

;D

Then why do I play my Wii more than my 360? Why do I know countless people my age, younger, and older that are all raving about the Wii....

What the hell am I saying? There's a reason why any multiplatform title I want I get for Xbox 360 and it is not because of the achievements. Silks, you might have a bad way of saying this, but your argument holds some truth.
Most of the people that rave about the Wii are people buying only Wii Sports, or getting Carnival Games, or even that freaking EA Playground game.
That doesn't mean that I hate the Wii though. I love the system and I do get a lot of play from it and I'm looking forward to close to 10 games this fall (I think, I kind of threw out a random number). I guess maybe the best part about the Wii is that there is a lot of good local multiplayer whether it be Wii Sports, Warioware or Brawl. Besides Rock Band, there's not a game on 360 that I own that has great local multiplayer.

NinGurl69 *hugglesSeptember 05, 2008

"Then why do I play my Wii more than my 360?"

^ Responsible adult.

True story: my company is having a "Wii Tournament" next week.  I was going to reply to the announcement email to ask what game they were going to use, since it wasn't mentioned.  But then I realized how silly that question would be; of course they were going to use Wii Sports.  Because, to the SUPER casual audience, that's really the only game of note for the Wii.  Speaks to how good that game really is.

Quote from: Silks

What I've always liked about the DS is that it's always had a healthy quantity of games to choose from across all genres (ever since Christmas 2005, of course).  With the DS there's never been a point at which I've said, "There are no games that interest me on this platform".  There's always something to look forward to on the DS in terms of my tastes, whether it's Bangai-O Spirits, KORG DS-10, Moon, or Tecmo Bowl.  On Wii I honestly can't name one announced game that I even care about...MadWorld intrigues me, but like No More Heroes, if I never played it I wouldn't feel like I missed out.

While I do believe that the DS does prove a useful model for considering how the Wii will grow in the future, I also acknowledge that their circumstances are not the same: the Wii is in a different space with more competition. Still, I think back to the early days of DS (which was a heck of a drought, lemme tell you) and no matter how much I adored launch games Sprung and Pac-Pix, my system did NOT get regular play until late 2006. I propose that just like you don't see any games of striking interest on the Wii in the near future, neither did I see many such titles for the DS for an entire TWO YEARS.

KDR_11kSeptember 05, 2008

Yep, the DS had a horrible start.

Well, with the DS you had a slew of big game announces around mid-2005.  I remember looking over a release list, seeing all of these awesome-looking games coming out, and thinking, "Holy crap, Christmas 2005 for the DS is going to be LOADED".  With Wii, I'm still waiting for that to happen...or maybe it already did, between August 2007-May 2008.

IceColdSeptember 22, 2008

Quote from: KDR_11k

Quote from: Silks

Besides, I'd argue that the industry needs those blockbuster "event" games to draw attention to itself.

Whose attention? I sure don't see the MSM reporting on the new GoW, MGS, etc. I do see them report about low budget games like Wii Sports or Fit. You mean the gaming press? Why do you need their attention, there's nothing else they can cover anyway.

Exactly.

Quote from: KDR_11k

The whole "they invested so much" argument is silly, it's like claiming you shouldn't fold when half your money is in the pot. If you have to fold then fold, you may have lost half your money but you still have the rest, if you throw it at a pot with no realistic chance of winning then you're just losing even more.

Again, exactly. It's a sunk cost. KDR, winner of the NWR sensibility award.


Also, as for the topic at hand, I'm kind of in the same boat as vudu and ButteryPat. First off, I just don't have time to play games much. I'm more than occupied with the Wii and DS. But more importantly, I've given games on other systems a chance.. and I just haven't liked them much.

I guess I'm an atypical gamer in that I don't like RPGs at all, most FPS games bore me (Wii control helps a lot though!), and non-Nintendo action/adventure games (Ico, Shadow of the Colossus, God of War) just don't do it for me. So that basically eliminates the 360 and PS3 for me.

I'm interested in some stuff on other consoles of course (NHL 09, Too Human because of my ED love) but it isn't nearly enough to make me buy a system.

NinGurl69 *hugglesSeptember 22, 2008

SHINOBI'S BACK

KDR_11kSeptember 23, 2008

Quote from: IceCold

I guess I'm an atypical gamer in that I don't like RPGs at all, most FPS games bore me (Wii control helps a lot though!), and non-Nintendo action/adventure games (Ico, Shadow of the Colossus, God of War) just don't do it for me. So that basically eliminates the 360 and PS3 for me.

I'm interested in some stuff on other consoles of course (NHL 09, Too Human because of my ED love) but it isn't nearly enough to make me buy a system.

You make it sound like Ico, SotC and GoW are the only non-Nintendo action games out there (personally I'd avoid any classification beyond action for the beat'em up-platformer-shooter hybrids that almost all "platformer" games are now). There's a huge list containing loads of different styles.

IceColdSeptember 23, 2008

I was listing those as examples - I thought I added an "etc".

Still, I've played a lot of the "well-received" games on other systems, and most of them just aren't that interesting to me.

NinGurl69 *hugglesJanuary 25, 2011

YOUR CRIMES DO NOT GO UNNOTICED, FORMER NINTENDO FAN STAFF

NEVER FORGET

ThePermFebruary 03, 2011

and you guys thought i bumped really old shit....

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r259/theultimateperm/facepalm.jpg

TGMFebruary 26, 2011

Crud, I ran out of popcorn. I guess I'll post something to take my mind off of my hunger. I bet it'll be a philosophical rant about the truth behind the ugly truth behind the video game industry.


In the industry as we know it good games don't matter since the term "good" is almost completely subjective. Sales hardly matter either since success is fleeting. Just ask Atari or Sega. My own personal preference matters to me, most definitely, but to the industry as a whole I am but one consumer among countless. I understand why we discuss quality, sales, and personal preference. We want to know if our favorite developer or publisher is doing well, we want to defend our interests, and we want to know that we are not alone in our convictions. Plus it can be fun. Kevin Butler can deliver a nice speech about how we need to embrace the bigger picture, insinuating that there should not be divisions among gamers, but many of us look at the bigger picture, ignore or fail to embrace its flaws, and we're suddenly back to arguing. Human nature, as it seems.
But what really matters in the grand scheme of things? What really shapes the industry and pushes it forward? Vision. People involved in the video game industry tend to have it. A creator's vision makes or breaks a game, since the perception of the vision determines the game's legacy.
I don't believe that there are good or bad games, just strong or weak visions. A truly revolutionary vision can spawn a beloved franchise that contributes much to how video games are designed. A vision could also be too different, failing to resonate with most. Sales are not necessarily a great judge of vision, however. Wii Play's vision was accepted so greatly because it came with a Wii Remote. While it made money, sales are fleeting, and Wii Play's legacy, unless it resonates with someone who can carry the torch, will not last. Critical acclaim is not a judge of vision either. Subjectivity denies absolution.
The only judge is the individual gamer. The only thing that matters in the long run is a legacy. A vision can create a legacy. Gamers and future creators can support the legacy.


What does any of this have to do with fanboyism? This isn't about who is screwing you out of your money or which game is better or what you like. This is a struggle against the cold, hard truth that nothing is permanent (though it can last for quite some time) and each company wants to stay relevant and continue making an impact. This is about relevancy, and since each one of these corporations by universal nature cannot exist forever, they strive to make as much of a difference as possible. The only war here is the Big 3 tripping over each other. Accept that everyone has a different means of staying relevant, realize that each of the Big 3 have already become relevant, and for the love of God try to coexist like Kevin Butler told us to.

GrubdogFebruary 27, 2011

Quote from: ButteryPat

Quote from: Mario

A good way to compare Honda to Sony is their F1 division as their games division. They are pretty much dead last, despite pouring billions of dollars into it, and buying staff from other F1 teams.

This is a much better analogy. See, Silks? It's not that people are saying that "Honda will stop making cars" it's more like saying "if Honda's F1 division continues racking up deficits for a long time, the board of executives could become tired of waiting for it to deliver on promises and decide it's not worth pursuing any longer". And that doesn't sound so crazy, does it?

Hah, nope. That's exactly what happened. Honda ended up giving up F1 altogether and selling their team. Under new management they went on to win the world championship the following year. I love old threads.

Got a news tip? Send it in!
Advertisement
Advertisement