Post by: joeamis on December 24, 2003, 06:00:47 AM
Wed December 24, 2003 7:44 AM
According to several sources, the latest issue of EDGE magazine (issue 132) contains what seems to be the strongest hint yet at a possible collaboration between Microsoft and Nintendo in the next generation console wars. Here's the text:
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RedEye can't say much more about who's going to be involved with the second generation of Microsoft's attempt to invade your living room, but just because it's you, here's a hint : IT'S A-ME MASTER CHIEF-IO. Don't tell anyone though - this news is on a strictly need to knintendow basis. Just between you and RedEye, Okay? Great
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: www.gamecubeland.com
Wow. I don't know if this changes anything but... well just tell us your thoughts and discuss the article.
this would be awesome, someone posted MS has nothing to offer Nintendo, I beg to differ.
Microsoft has online network completely in place, something Nintendo needs,
Microsoft has tons of money for advertising, something Nintendo needs to do...,
Microsoft can help Nintendo come out with a console that would be far superior to
PS3, if both Microsoft and Nintendo pooled their funds together to create it...
Microsoft gets all the adult/advanced/PC games like Doom 3, Fable, Halo 2, and Ninja Gaiden
if they worked together, Sony would have a rival like Sega was to Nintendo in the Genesis era.
and if it was backwards compatible with GC and XB, you'd have all the owners of those two systems buying this new one...
Post by: Guitar Smasher on December 24, 2003, 06:51:58 AM
- Nintendo's attitude towards violent games
- Microsoft is and American corporation (different ethics)
- It would alienate kids' games
- Nintendo would feel obligated to release games on PC
- Different goals (Microsoft - more $, Nintendo - best gaming)
In my opinion, they are the exact opposite of each other, and therefore would never work together. I think a collaboration with Sega is 100% more likely.
Post by: Crash on December 24, 2003, 01:51:55 PM
Microsoft has online network completely in place, something Nintendo needs - yet to be determined; right now, surel, but what about during the GameCube 2 era ??? We don't know what Nintendo has up their sleaves.
Microsoft has tons of money for advertising, something Nintendo needs to do..., Nintendo is spending MILLIONS this season on their Who Are you program...and it seems to be working.
Microsoft can help Nintendo come out with a console that would be far superior to - based on what?? A 4 year old PC that is the size of a 1983 VCR?
PS3, if both Microsoft and Nintendo pooled their funds together to create it...
Microsoft gets all the adult/advanced/PC games like Doom 3, Fable, Halo 2, and Ninja Gaiden
if they worked together, Sony would have a rival like Sega was to Nintendo in the Genesis era; judging by Sega now, that was clearly important.....
Sorry dude, don't see it.
Post by: Polemistis on December 24, 2003, 04:55:44 PM
This "rumor" could be a sign that Microsoft is worried about what their future holds for them in the gaming industry because everyone knows they are behind Sony and Nintendo.
Post by: joeamis on December 24, 2003, 07:01:03 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Crash
Microsoft has online network completely in place, something Nintendo needs - yet to be determined; right now, surel, but what about during the GameCube 2 era ??? We don't know what Nintendo has up their sleaves.
Microsoft has tons of money for advertising, something Nintendo needs to do..., Nintendo is spending MILLIONS this season on their Who Are you program...and it seems to be working.
Microsoft can help Nintendo come out with a console that would be far superior to - based on what?? A 4 year old PC that is the size of a 1983 VCR?
PS3, if both Microsoft and Nintendo pooled their funds together to create it...
Microsoft gets all the adult/advanced/PC games like Doom 3, Fable, Halo 2, and Ninja Gaiden
if they worked together, Sony would have a rival like Sega was to Nintendo in the Genesis era; judging by Sega now, that was clearly important.....
Sorry dude, don't see it.
the first point is that MS online network is already in place... (saves Nintendo mad $ and employee resources)
the 2nd point is that MS can spend a he11uva lot more than Nintendo can on advertising...
3rd point: if they work together they can pool their funds and resources...DUH... this will equal a better system than working alone, also the GC is superior to PS2, and the XB far superior... (and i hate xbox, i own ps2 and gc just so you know)
AND FINALLY "DUDE" if sega did not succeed with genesis they would not exist anymore......
Post by: cj723 on December 24, 2003, 07:07:38 PM
As for the idea that Microsoft thinks about the dollars and Nintendo only the game quality, thats bullocks. They both think about nothing but the bottom line and their market shares, they are both huge, faceless multinational corporations.
I don't Love Nintendo, I love GAMING, and Nintendo games are the ones I love the most. If joining forces with Microsoft left Nintendo to do what they do best, and thats make games, id be very happy.
Post by: KDR_11k on December 24, 2003, 10:50:37 PM
Microsoft is known for screwing over smaller companies (Nvidia, Sendo, ...). Nintendo might make mistakes but they can still smell a trap.
Basically you said Microsoft offers an unprofitable online network and lots of money. Nintendo wants to set up a profitable network and have enough time to do so until the N5 launches. If you need money you ask a bank, that's cheaper than partnering with Microsoft. A partner will demand like 50% of your profits, that's way more than a bank demands.
Post by: mjbd on December 25, 2003, 10:44:24 AM
Post by: The Omen on December 25, 2003, 02:32:27 PM
Quote
AND FINALLY "DUDE" if sega did not succeed with genesis they would not exist anymore......
Frankly, they aren't around anymore.
Pooling MS and Nintendo resources together would only work if MS relinquished some control over the actual game aspect of the system. Do you see MS doing anything remotely close to this? I see the exact opposite. Nintendo would be far better remaining solo, which their track record proves. As for this whole ' Nintendo needs MS for the adult games' angle, I say BS. Nintendo just needs to become aggressive with 3rd parties, and they'll get those games. Releasing the N5 first would be great because many 3rd parties would put their big name games on the 'new' system, especially since its a Nintendo system, and historicallly, Nintendo has an installed user base. Hardcore, if you will.
Post by: Crash on December 26, 2003, 03:33:26 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: The OmenQuote
AND FINALLY "DUDE" if sega did not succeed with genesis they would not exist anymore......
Frankly, they aren't around anymore.
.
DAMN!!! You stole my post. You know what....that is a sad, sad point. Sega will re-invent themselves...they deserve to be in this business WAY more than either Sony or MicroSoft.
the first point is that MS online network is already in place... (saves Nintendo mad $ and employee resources); missing my point here....we don't know what Nintendo has in place. If they have spent gobs of cash on a system that we are not aware of; how would it save them money?
the 2nd point is that MS can spend a he11uva lot more than Nintendo can on advertising...Obviously they can by the sheer amount of liquid resources at their disposal (MS has $32 billion; Nintendo has $8 billion in the bank) - but that is not what your first post said. You said Nintendo needed advertising.
3rd point: if they work together they can pool their funds and resources...DUH... this will equal a better system than working alone, also the GC is superior to PS2, and the XB far superior... (and i hate xbox, i own ps2 and gc just so you know); fair enough.
Post by: joeamis on December 26, 2003, 06:07:06 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: CrashQuote
Originally posted by: The OmenQuote
AND FINALLY "DUDE" if sega did not succeed with genesis they would not exist anymore......
Frankly, they aren't around anymore.
.
the first point is that MS online network is already in place... (saves Nintendo mad $ and employee resources); missing my point here....we don't know what Nintendo has in place. If they have spent gobs of cash on a system that we are not aware of; how would it save them money?
the 2nd point is that MS can spend a he11uva lot more than Nintendo can on advertising...Obviously they can by the sheer amount of liquid resources at their disposal (MS has $32 billion; Nintendo has $8 billion in the bank) - but that is not what your first post said. You said Nintendo needed advertising.
Sega is still around, theyre one of the top 10 publishers of games, but if Genesis failed they would be more like an NEC by now.
1st point:----It would save them money because they wouldn't have to put all the money into creating a worldwide network, including employee salaries as well. They can just let Microsoft handle doing the networking, and it would be good.
2nd point:--Yes I said Nintendo needed to do more advertising, something they will never do as much as Microsoft will because they can't gamble their money that way as much as MS is able to. If they joined Nintendo could advertise only it's 1st party games and more so, while leaving MS to advertise the 3rd party games, (Nintendo is currently advertising for 3rd party as well)
Some of us don't have friends who live nearby anymore, they all moved to different states, so online gaming is our only source of multiplayer anymore, and online gaming is nothing like playing against AI...
If Nintendo was not concerned with only money and doing well in a business sense, they would have given us online games by now. They should give what the people want, not just give it if they can profit off it.
Post by: mjbd on December 26, 2003, 06:26:00 AM
QuoteAre you ok? I think nintendo should give away there games from now on, I know its not profitable for them, but its what we want.
They should give what the people want, not just give it if they can profit off it.
See how rediculous it sounds. Nintendo is a business to make money, and they have been doing that for for many many years. As for playing AI vs online against someone, tell me what the big differance is? I was all into warppipe there for a while, but when I really thought about it, there wasnt much differance between playing someone over the net vs. playing the AI.
Post by: joeamis on December 26, 2003, 07:09:16 AM
meaning like PS2, their online games are free, they dont make profit off their online content, but they still give it to us because thats what we want.
see how ridiculous you sound?
AI does not behave like humans yet, the difference is AI cannot replicate the workings of a human mind yet... and therefor is not as fun, how many online games do you own?
plus you can talk to people online WHILE YOURE PLAYING, you cant talk to AI.
Post by: mjbd on December 26, 2003, 11:28:23 AM
Post by: Guitar Smasher on December 26, 2003, 11:32:37 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: joeamis
are you ok???
AI does not behave like humans yet, the difference is AI cannot replicate the workings of a human mind yet... and therefor is not as fun, how many online games do you own?
plus you can talk to people online WHILE YOURE PLAYING, you cant talk to AI.
Anyone who plays online just so they can talk to someone is sad.
Post by: joeamis on December 26, 2003, 11:55:11 AM
he said how is online any different from AI, i was stating one of the reasons why.
it's fun to talk to the friends you meet online, for example in Starcraft, when you
want to form your strategies or if you want to host games that you have made yourself.
some talking online is crucial to the game, ex: starcraft lets you send messages to only allies if you wish... very good for strategy, another example is Socom...
it's also why they let you add people to your list so you can see if they're on and which game they're currently in.
before you knock people in the thread take into account the whole situation
Post by: mjbd on December 26, 2003, 12:20:53 PM
Post by: manunited4eva22 on December 26, 2003, 12:51:41 PM
What I am really talking about is the way FPS are set up. Some, well actually very few, servers are hosted by a user, most often the server is rented and at a nice little premium (for instance a 20 man server can run over 75 dollars a month) Obviously now, not everyone is paying, but there are enough people paying to maintane several hundred servers to each game. If someone could pull that off in console games, the problem would be solved in a way that works on a much simpler scale.
Post by: The Omen on December 27, 2003, 07:50:52 AM
Quote
Sega is still around, theyre one of the top 10 publishers of games, but if Genesis failed they would be more like an NEC by now.
And you know what? They are on a steady decline. If you havent heard, there is big time trouble with Sammy corp. taking over majority stock in Sega. Besides this new unrest, Sega went from being the #1 developer less than 10 years ago, to completely dropping consoles because they cant run their business. Sega havent been financially healthy in years, and its only getting worse. So i repeat-frankly, they arent around anymore.
Post by: Chongman on January 02, 2004, 03:02:38 PM
online gaming IS so so much more enjoyable then sitting alone in your livingroom playing by yourself against some dumb AI that does the same old tactics over and over again.
The reason online gaming is so enjoyable is because there is a myriad of differences in how people play and that makes it challenging and fun. You can eventualy figure out the computer and beat it every time if you want and that gets stale fast. People are just more fun to play against, and thats the facts. Even just knowing someone is at the end of the line looking at the exact same screen you are trying to outwit YOU makes it that much more fun.
Post by: Bill Aurion on January 02, 2004, 03:17:31 PM
Not more fun than playing with a bunch of friends that are in the same room as you...
Post by: Chongman on January 02, 2004, 05:01:56 PM
yeah, i agree with you there, but online gaming has its conveniences, such as you're not crowded onto one screen. Plus, if you want a lot of people to play at one time, u have to lan and thats such a hassle. Online play is a completely different experience though. Playing against a stranger is very different then playing against a friend in the same room. And its fun. At least thats my opinion, and i'm sure plenty of other online players think the same way.
Post by: KDR_11k on January 02, 2004, 08:28:12 PM
Post by: Guitar Smasher on January 03, 2004, 01:05:13 PM
Post by: odifiend on January 03, 2004, 01:40:02 PM
Post by: KDR_11k on January 03, 2004, 10:13:54 PM
Post by: joeamis on January 04, 2004, 12:26:32 AM
And you know what? They are on a steady decline. If you havent heard, there is big time trouble with Sammy corp. taking over majority stock in Sega. Besides this new unrest, Sega went from being the #1 developer less than 10 years ago, to completely dropping consoles because they cant run their business. Sega havent been financially healthy in years, and its only getting worse. So i repeat-frankly, they arent around anymore.
---------------------------------------------
if Sega is not around anymore why do they release atleast 1 game every month? Why did Panzer Dragoon and ESPN NFL 04 get game of the year awards? Why are they one of the only publishers who consistently release games on every console? How are they not around anymore??? Why did Nintendo entrust Sega to co-develop one of their most popular franchises???!
chong can u think of when AI will outperform humans, that will be crazy! But that's way far off (supercomputers still can't outperform humans in chess, incase anyone wants to say the opposite)
Post by: Crash on January 04, 2004, 02:35:05 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: joeamis
Quote:
if Sega is not around anymore why do they release atleast 1 game every month? Why did Panzer Dragoon and ESPN NFL 04 get game of the year awards? Why are they one of the only publishers who consistently release games on every console? How are they not around anymore??? Why did Nintendo entrust Sega to co-develop one of their most popular franchises???!
)
Sega has been flirting with being broke since the demise of the Dreamcast (well the Saturn actually); which is a big shame - but true. Nobody has said they are not around anymore, the comment is that Sega is not the powerhouse they used to be, not even close.
Post by: The Omen on January 04, 2004, 05:02:12 AM
Quote
if Sega is not around anymore why do they release atleast 1 game every month? Why did Panzer Dragoon and ESPN NFL 04 get game of the year awards? Why are they one of the only publishers who consistently release games on every console? How are they not around anymore??? Why did Nintendo entrust Sega to co-develop one of their most popular franchises???!
chong can u think of when AI will outperform humans, that will be crazy! But that's way far off (supercomputers still can't outperform humans in chess, incase anyone wants to say the opposite)
Not around anymore meaning in terms of industry pull, they have deteriorated to a 3rd party developer which have a few good games, but thats it. I did not mean Sega have dissappeared off the planet like a ghost...
Post by: KDR_11k on January 04, 2004, 05:17:11 AM
Also, MS isn't dumb, they know that once their partner's business dies they no longer have to share profits. Ask Sendo.
Post by: joeamis on January 04, 2004, 08:26:45 AM
will not be interested in merging because they want to eliminate Nintendo entirely
rather than using them to achieve the same amount of success or even more... (not being sarcastic)
As far as Sega okay, you say in terms of industry pull, now I say they still pull enough than
to not be considered 'not around', their sports games this year are considered as good as electronic arts if not better for basketball and football, and maybe other sports titles too (i dunno outside those), and they have the undisputed Fighting game of the year in VF4 EV (i say undisputed because I haven't seen one game of the year awards goto SC2 instead, overall)
They keep churning out the games, maybe some don't match the quality of their great dreamcast titles, like the ongoing Sonic titles per se, but they're still releasing some of the best games of this generation
i.e. panzer dragoon orta, VF4 EV, ESPN Basketball/Football, F-Zero GX (so far)
I remember in the Saturn days Sega did not come out with any new games for over a year, so I'd say they died then, had a rebirth, died again, and this is their 2nd rebirth, not that they just suddenly died now.
Post by: Guitar Smasher on January 04, 2004, 10:46:37 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: joeamis
chong can u think of when AI will outperform humans, that will be crazy! But that's way far off (supercomputers still can't outperform humans in chess, incase anyone wants to say the opposite)
Well, since you had to bring it up, I guess you should know better. I guess you've never heard of Deep Blue, a supercomputer, which back in 1997, defeated World Chess Champion Gary Kasparov.
Here is proof
And even if it hadn't been capable of beating Kasparov, it still would've taken you to school.
Post by: The Omen on January 04, 2004, 10:56:32 AM
Post by: Guitar Smasher on January 04, 2004, 11:04:01 AM
Post by: The Omen on January 04, 2004, 12:01:56 PM
Post by: joeamis on January 04, 2004, 03:59:40 PM
its like your friend watching how you play a game every single time you play it, and then using strategy against you based on how you played.
and that is chess, which is a stationary TBS game, so take it with a grain of salt
what i meant exactly is when AI is more fun than playing against a person (for nearly every game)
Post by: manunited4eva22 on January 04, 2004, 06:47:55 PM
I really don't like playing against AI though. AI relies upon 2 tactics, holding the strong attack point, i.e. holding a room in a FPS or a field, or by relying on a specific fault and power only, like in a game like Diablo where most enemies have an immunity to something and a strength in the same field.
When you play a game online, it is ALWAYS much harder to defeat everything. Have you ever tried to play a FPS online compared to even the most attuned AI? The difference is that AI relies on an algorythm to know where you are, there is nothing random about it. 9/10 times I can do the same thing to a AI character and he will respond the same way. Humans will be random quite often. Humans make mistakes, and they are far more random, this is less luck, more skill.
For instance in a FPS, playing single player, you can basically pick off an entire enemy team, and they would barely take notice, even on the hardest difficulties, in an online game, you probablly wouldn't make it past 1 before you were being shot at.
They are two very different worlds, and until there is some kind of algorythm to make AI keep up.
