Support NeoGAF

[krypt0nian]

who would you respect more.. a small company that became and industry leader.. or a huge conglomerate that bought out other companies in order to become an industry leader?

Why anyone would respect companies simply doing business is beyond me. However you get me my games without breaking laws is fine and dandy. I don't look to any Corp to keep my best interests at heart.

 

[gamergirly]

From the gameboy line. Unless you have evidence that the GC is raking in the cash for them.

Hell, look at September's NPD. Mario Baseball sold 165k and the N-hive is crapping itself with glee. Newsflash: 165k for a 1st party game at the peak of console sellthrough fucking sucks. Look how Batallion Wars and Geist bombed. The reality is that the Nintendo mindshare has dropped like a rock, and while they managed to pull in good sales for the first few years of the GC's life, their endgame has been terrible, and it's going to follow them into the Rev. It hurt them last fall when MP2 more or less crashed, when a Nintendo RPG has, after a year, only managed 600k (with pricedrops), and when Pikmin 2 completely bombed, despite massive critical acclaim.

You don't get to hit a big "mindshare-reset" button at the end of every generation. The loss of mindshare from the Saturn did a huge amount to destroy the DC, and the loss of mindshare from the GC is going to damage the Rev, especially since, at a minimum, the first 6 months of the console will be terrible until devs figure out how to properly implement the controls. You thought the first 7 months of DS were bad? Those were nothing in comparison, and during that time MS/Sony are going to be gangraping Nintendo's remaining console mindshare.

Gangraping, I tell you. And when the gangrape is over MS and Sony will team up with Gizmondo and Nokia and bukakke all over the sobbing Rev, her mascarra running down her face as the digital semen mixes with her tears of "innovation".

And you can apply alot of that to the Xbox as well. When was the last time a non-sports title sold over half a million on the Xbox? 1st party title? 2nd party title?

The fact that Xbox 360 is coming has nothing to do with the software sales for the existing Xbox fanbase. Existing owners should still be buying Xbox titles in droves even while new owners buying the system is limited. The only console selling like it should is the PS2, and that's just reality. I wouldnt call doing a little better than GC over here in the States or tanking in Japan as doing MUCH better than it.

It's also not reality in how you have Revolution's durability and outcome wrapped around GC's butt.

How many past GC owners or others that Rev is targetting is going to think about GC when they play games radically different on a new console? Nothing about Rev is associated with GC thus far, outside of the Nintendo name and the fact that existing Nintendo franchises will be on the console. Nothing.

Nintendo fans are going to be disappointed if Rev tanks, but people like you are going to be the ones in an asylum never able to EVER compehend a successful Revolution.

 

[Of All Trades]

Well I'm kinda referring to their initial launch in October 1985 with the different retailers. I forget the specifics, but if the systems didn't sell, Nintendo'd reimburse them or something. They also went in with little brand name recognition (after the Atari deal fell through).

Ok, but that's not much more of a risk than, say, launching a console against very established brand leaders (which both Sony and MS did).

And Donkey Kong was sort of a big deal considering how popular it was and what the majority of arcade games were back then.

DK was popular but not grossly more innovative/unique compared to other arcade games of the time. It certainly wasn't any more or less of a gamble than the other arcade games of the time.

entering a new market is not necessarily the same thing as buying your way into a market.

At this point you're just shifting goalposts. Nintendo was not really any more or less unique than MS/Sony when they launched the NES.

 

[koam]

A) Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony were all evil at some point in time (or still are)
B) The whole reason we're having this argument is because someone doesn't know the definition of "buying their way in"
C) Nintendo has always been a "gaming" company, be it video or cards.
D) Nintendo relied primarly on their own games with the NES whearas Microsoft and Sony relied on 3rd parties mosty. The NES had amazing 3rd party support but they had a lot more 1st party stuff originally.

 

[Particle Physicist]

EA isn't and neither is Nintendo. Big corps hate you and only want your money. The fact that you think Nintendo is somehow different takes this exchange and makes it worthless.

I was going by your negative definition of "buying your way in" and saying everyone buys their way in. Sorry if that leap is hard for you.

sigh. you are kinda mixing up arguments here. i didnt say anything about companies doing things for their fans while disregarding the bottom line. big corporations dont hate us, they love us.. we give them our money.

okay, back to a topic at hand..

by the way, i am speaking in general terms.. for any market.. be it videogames, drum equipment, automobiles, computer hardware, etc.

i certainly am more impressed by a small company that is able to become a leader in a new market, than a large corporation that buys several smaller companies (relatively) in order to become a leader in a new market. keep in mind, im not saying that that large corporation is necessarily bad/evil/etc., its just not as impressive.

as for the main topic at hand..

how can i explain something to you if you dont believe it. the fact of the matter is, 'entering a new market is not necessarily the same thing as buying your way into a market.' but you dont believe in this stuff. so whats the point of continuing this discussion?

 

[AniHawk]

Again, only Atari can really claim to have risen to power from nothing but videogames.

So you would agree with the statement that Nintendo would be a household name had they never entered the video game industry? What about Sony and Microsoft?

 

[krypt0nian]

A) Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony were all evil at some point in time (or still are)
B) The whole reason we're having this argument is because someone doesn't know the definition of "buying their way in"
C) Nintendo has always been a "gaming" company, be it video or cards.

D) Total bullshit designed to somehow make you feel better about all of this.

"gaming company" :lol They made playing cards, etc.

As has been pointed out, SONY and MS were more gaming companies than Nintendo as they actually <gasp> made videogames.

And again No, big corps don't love anyone. That's just ridiculous. They are wholly selfish entities. If they loved you in any way, they would put your needs first. Come on.

 

[AniHawk]

(which both Sony and MS did).

Companies that could absorb the losses if they turned out to be busts?

DK was popular but not grossly more innovative/unique compared to other arcade games of the time. It certainly wasn't any more or less of a gamble than the other arcade games of the time.

Well it certainly was for the company, which was kinda the point I was trying to make, not that it was risky for the arcade industry.

 

[Particle Physicist]

SCEA and MS had videogame studios well prior to releasing consoles, so I'm not sure where you're going with this.

i was just trying to explain what buying into a new market means.. whether i believe that SCEA and/or MS did that, is a whole different argument.

Nintendo wasn't small when they made the NES, and they certainly behave worse than most huge conglomerates when they were on top. Nor did Sony/MS simply appear from the aether as huge companies.

relative to sony and ms, nintendo is small.

Again, only Atari can really claim to have risen to power from nothing but videogames.

thats a different matter, which im not disputing.

Why anyone would respect companies simply doing business is beyond me. However you get me my games without breaking laws is fine and dandy. I don't look to any Corp to keep my best interests at heart.

maybe im thinking about this in broader terms.. outside of just videogames.. maybe its because im planning on starting my own business sometime in the future.. but yes, looking at what certain companies are able to accomplish impresses me.

 

[Of All Trades]

And you can apply alot of that to the Xbox as well. When was the last time a non-sports title sold over half a million on the Xbox? 1st party title? 2nd party title?

GTASA? Fable? Maybe Chaos Theory?

The fact that Xbox 360 is coming has nothing to do with the software sales for the existing Xbox fanbase. Existing owners should still be buying Xbox titles in droves even while new owners buying the system is limited. The only console selling like it should is the PS2, and that's just reality. I wouldnt call doing a little better than GC over here in the States or tanking in Japan as doing MUCH better than it.

I guess you weren't paying attention over the last few months, but xbox software has been selling very well in comparison to PS2 software, especially considering the diparity between installed base. It's only the GC where 1st/3rd party (especially 3rd party) software has been really pathetic.

And it's not doing "a little better" than the GC, it's sold 25% more consoles and, for this year I believe, 100% more software.

It's also not reality in how you have Revolution's durability and outcome wrapped around GC's butt.

How many past GC owners or others that Rev is targetting is going to think about GC when they play games radically different on a new console? Nothing about Rev is associated with GC thus far, outside of the Nintendo name and the fact that existing Nintendo franchises will be on the console. Nothing.

The name alone will hurt it. The DC was supposed to be a fresh start for Sega yet the Saturn still killed it from birth. It's irrelevant how Nintendo wants to portray the Rev, what matters is that the mindshare will hurt it. Is it possible that the Rev will be a turnaround for Nintendo consoles? Sure. But it'll be working against the generally negative mindshare from the GC.

 

[AniHawk]

As has been pointed out, SONY and MS were more gaming companies than Nintendo as they actually <gasp> made videogames.

What?

Do you even read what you type?

 

[krypt0nian]

Companies that could absorb the losses if they turned out to be busts?

How is that any different? So now only big corps are bad? And the underdog is to be commended? Who cares who can absorb losses. Hell Nintendo could play the aquisition game too, but they like to count their cash more. You guys personalize this far far too much.

Say this over and over "Nintendo is a souless company like every other, and is only out for my money"

 

[koam]

D) Total bullshit designed to somehow make you feel better about all of this.

"gaming company" :lol They made playing cards, etc.

As has been pointed out, SONY and MS were more gaming companies than Nintendo as they actually <gasp> made videogames.

Glad to see you finally realized your mistake in point "B".

"As has been pointed out, SONY and MS were more gaming companies than Nintendo as they actually <gasp> made videogames."

Congratulations, That is quite possibly the stupidest thing I've ever read on the internet.

Playing cards...

cards (used with a sing. or pl. verb) Games.
A game played with cards.
The playing of games with cards.

 

[krypt0nian]

What?

Do you even read what you type?

Now where is your reading faultering. Did they not make games before making consoles?

 

[Sathsquatch]

And you can apply alot of that to the Xbox as well. When was the last time a non-sports title sold over half a million on the Xbox? 1st party title? 2nd party title?

The fact that Xbox 360 is coming has nothing to do with the software sales for the existing Xbox fanbase. Existing owners should still be buying Xbox titles in droves even while new owners buying the system is limited. The only console selling like it should is the PS2, and that's just reality. I wouldnt call doing a little better than GC over here in the States or tanking in Japan as doing MUCH better than it.

It's also not reality in how you have Revolution's durability and outcome wrapped around GC's butt.

How many past GC owners or others that Rev is targetting is going to think about GC when they play games radically different on a new console? Nothing about Rev is associated with GC thus far, outside of the Nintendo name and the fact that existing Nintendo franchises will be on the console. Nothing.

Nintendo fans are going to be disappointed if Rev tanks, but people like you are going to be the ones in an asylum never able to EVER compehend a successful Revolution.

Have any non-sports games broken the half-million mark this year? I can think of maybe one, GOW, which only had sold a half-million last I heard. I think Jade Empire broke 400,000.

The fact that the Revolution even has the Nintendo name attached to it is problematic enough. Nintendo didn't lose half their marketshare because the Cube hardware was bad (in fact, is was really good). They lost their marketshare because of their name and their lack of content (which is also due to their reputation).

I don't really want the Revolution to fail, but I don't really think that it can succeed. I really have seen no convincing proof that it can perform any better than the GCN. The Xbox may have only a few million more units sold than the Cube, but MS went from having zero market share to taking half of Nintendo's. Nintendo simply lost half of their share. I gave Nintendo a fair shot at the beginning of this generation as did a lot of old Nintendo fans. I don't know if I will give them the benefit of the doubt this time around, and I suspect a lot of people feel the same way.

 

[AniHawk]

How is that any different? So now only big corps are bad? And the underdog is to be commended? Who cares who can absorb losses.

You're putting words into my mouth. Once again, I'm not saying it's BAD, I'm saying it's DIFFERENT.

 

[AniHawk]

Now where is your reading faultering. Did they not make games before making consoles?

ALL OF THEM DID.

How does that make one MORE than the other?

 

[Particle Physicist]

How is that any different? So now only big corps are bad? And the underdog is to be commended? Who cares who can absorb losses. Hell Nintendo could play the aquisition game too, but they like to count their cash more. You guys personalize this far far too much.

Say this over and over "Nintendo is a souless company like every other, and is only out for my money"

you're the only one talking about good and bad. get over it.

 

[evilromero]

Yes yes they made an efficient console. They also gained the "kiddy crap" title and sunk in overall mindshare. Gratz! They made cash. They also because a non-issue in gaming for many that once deservedly held them in high regard.

I'd say that would ring up as faiure if scanned.

You sure about that tiger? Maybe you already forgot the stigma Nintendo gained during the NES/Genesis years. Go back. Check the microfilms. Consumers were clearly aware that Nintendo was not a "cool" system by any means. Shit hasn't changed. Maybe you weren't alive then. I really don't know. But what I can tell you, from first hand observation, is that Nintendo was the kiddy system when Sega deployed its aggressive advertising campaign.

And regarding the Cube losing so much 3rd party support- exactly the opposite. I would argue that Nintendo gained a significant amount of support after the N64 exodus. Capcom, Konami, Square, Namco.

 

[koam]

Now where is your reading faultering. Did they not make games before making consoles?

Uhh.. Nintendo made games YEARS before they made the NES.

 

[Of All Trades]

So you would agree with the statement that Nintendo would be a household name had they never entered the video game industry? What about Sony and Microsoft?

Maybe, but it's really hard to say because Nintendo entered the console market in the 80s, prior to the Information Era. They certainly had a huge number of arcade games. There are too many variables to make an accurate prediction (if consoles hadn't appeared, would arcades still be around?).

Well it certainly was for the company, which was kinda the point I was trying to make, not that it was risky for the arcade industry.

Proof that DK was a major risk for Nintendo?

 

[AniHawk]

Proof that DK was a major risk for Nintendo?

Sorry, I meant Nintendo of America. I'm really thinking back to Kent's book. I know they were successful on a good level in Japan, but it was Nintendo of America that Yamauchi really wanted to become big, and Donkey Kong was the big ol' wildcard. IIRC, they had trouble paying their rent on time.

Anyway, I gotta go, though this has been... interesting.

Maybe, but it's really hard to say because Nintendo entered the console market in the 80s, prior to the Information Era. They certainly had a huge number of arcade games. There are too many variables to make an accurate prediction (if consoles hadn't appeared, would arcades still be around?).

Nope, I'm talking about the video game industry. Meaning no arcades, no consoles or anything.

 

[koam]

Maybe, but it's really hard to say because Nintendo entered the console market in the 80s, prior to the Information Era. They certainly had a huge number of arcade games. There are too many variables to make an accurate prediction (if consoles hadn't appeared, would arcades still be around?).

Proof that DK was a major risk for Nintendo?

They had consoles before the NES btw.

During 1975 Yamauchi began doing research into a new American trend in which one could connect a device to a television in order to play simple games, called video games. Other companies, such as Atari, had had some success in this field and Hiroshi decided it would be a good business venture for Nintendo to delve into. In the same year, he negotiated a deal with Magnavox to allow Nintendo to produce and sell the Magnavox Odyssey, a simple video game console. Since Nintendo didn't have the necessary equipment to manufacture these machines, they created a pact with Mitsubishi, who would manufacture them.

With Nintendo's new relationship with Mitsubishi, in 1977 the two companies released their joint effort video game machine, the Color TV Game 6, which allowed players to play six different very simple versions of tennis, which sold millions of units. 1977 is also the year Shigeru Miyamoto joined Nintendo, working as an art designer for arcade games.

Soon, Nintendo released several other successful home video game consoles, including an advanced version of the Color TV Game 6, called the Color TV Game 15, a racing game, and another game called Kusure, or Blockbuster .

 

[Of All Trades]

You sure about that tiger? Maybe you already forgot the stigma Nintendo gained during the NES/Genesis years. Go back. Check the microfilms. Consumers were clearly aware that Nintendo was not a "cool" system by any means. Shit hasn't changed. Maybe you weren't alive then. I really don't know. But what I can tell you, from first hand observation, is that Nintendo was the kiddy system when Sega deployed its aggressive advertising campaign.

Europe aside, the NES destroyed the SMS in reputation. Sega only started the "extreme" advertising during the 16-bit generation.

And regarding the Cube losing so much 3rd party support- exactly the opposite. I would argue that Nintendo gained a significant amount of support after the N64 exodus. Capcom, Konami, Square, Namco.

A couple half-assed titles (and a couple excellent ones, but mostly non-exclusive) does not equal real 3rd party support. Also, where Sony excelled was in getting smaller 3rd party developer support, not the majors.

 

[krypt0nian]

you're the only one talking about good and bad. get over it.

IF you read the genesis of this.....it was in response to one posters view of why fans hated SONY/MS.

Could that be a negative? Read the post or dont bother. Don't just jump in when the Mushroom Phone rings.

 

[krypt0nian]

Uhh.. Nintendo made games YEARS before they made the NES.

Uhh Yeah I know.

 

[koam]

Donkey Kong was created when Shigeru Miyamoto was assigned by Nintendo to convert Radar Scope, a poor selling arcade game in the U.S., into a game that would appeal more to Americans. The result was a major breakthrough for Nintendo and for the videogame industry. It was likely the first game with a "hero", a "villain", and a "damsel in distress". Sales of the machine were brisk, with the game becoming one of the best-selling arcade machines of the early 80s. The gameplay itself was a large improvement over other games of its time, and with the growing base of arcades to sell to, it was able to gain huge distribution.

MCA Universal sued Nintendo over copyright violations, claiming that Donkey Kong was a copy of King Kong. If victorious, this lawsuit would have crushed Nintendo of America, and the history of videogames would be drastically altered. Nintendo's lawyer, Howard Lincoln, who would go on to become a Senior Vice President of the company, discovered that Universal didn't own the copyright to King Kong either, and was able to not only win the lawsuit, but got Universal to pay the legal costs; ironically, it was MCA Universal that won a lawsuit declaring King Kong was in the public domain. This incident earned the #20 spot in GameSpy's The 25 Dumbest Moments in Gaming.

Due to the huge success of Donkey Kong, Nintendo of America was able to grow and release many more games in succeeding years, and had the resources necessary to release the NES in the USA.

How much more proof do you guys need? Donkey kong was a risk, it worked out, made Nintendo money which they then used to fund the NES.

 

[mj1108]

As has been pointed out, SONY and MS were more gaming companies than Nintendo as they actually <gasp> made videogames.

If you are going to spew crap like this, how can anyone seriously debate you?

 

[Raistlin]

Why can't there be feedback? Rumble is in the controller no?

have you ever played a drum?

 

[koam]

have you ever played a drum?

I'm thinking he means you get feedback when you "hit" the drum to let you know you hit it.

 

[Particle Physicist]

IF you read the genesis of this.....it was in response to one posters view of why fans hated SONY/MS.

Could that be a negative? Read the post or dont bother. Don't just jump in when the Mushroom Phone rings.

i jumped in when you made retarded statements.


i dont even play gamecube, and i might not even buy a revolution, so dont try to call me a fanboy.

 

[Ulairi]

Maybe, but it's really hard to say because Nintendo entered the console market in the 80s, prior to the Information Era. They certainly had a huge number of arcade games. There are too many variables to make an accurate prediction (if consoles hadn't appeared, would arcades still be around?).

Proof that DK was a major risk for Nintendo?

If it didn't sell they were going to can their video game division and stick with cards/toys.

 

[krypt0nian]

If you are going to spew crap like this, how can anyone seriously debate you?

If you're going to go there, Nintendo made playing cards, then handhelds/arcade machines

Sony/MS made operating systems/electronics, then were publisher/developers, then made consoles.

Each had an entry point. How dare a playing card printer enter Atari/Magnavox/Mattel's videogame industy?

 

[AssMan]

It'll come down to Nintendo loyalists buying the Revolution or being so turned off by the new controller they dis-ban Nintendo forever. I really don't think they will draw in new gamers.

 

[krypt0nian]

i jumped in when you made retarded statements.


i dont even play gamecube, and i might not even buy a revolution, so dont try to call me a fanboy.

So what you're saying is that now you understand that I'm not the one who created this. Cool on you.

 

[koam]

If you're going to go there, Nintendo made playing cards, then handhelds/arcade machines

Sony/MS made operating systems/electronics, then were publisher/developers, then made consoles.

Each had an entry point. How dare a playing card printer enter Atari/Magnavox/Mattel's videogame industy?

Maybe.. just MAYBE.. it has something to do with the fact that the videogame industry wasn't exactly very active in 1889? Nintendo has been making videogames since pretty much the beginning (of videogames); Microsoft didn't even exist yet and Sony was making radios and televisions.

Oh, and FYI, Nintendo had a console out before Mattel's Intellivision and Nintendo's first console was a joint-venture with Magnavox. Maybe you should actually get your facts straight next time you blurt out the first thing in your mind.

 

[Monk]

It'll come down to Nintendo loyalists buying the Revolution or being so turned off by the new controller they dis-ban Nintendo forever. I really don't think they will draw in new gamers.

Why Nintendo isnt even aiming for them(ie the nintendo loyalists)? Also if the DS can attract new gamers, I dont see how the Rev which doesn't have a stupid gimmick like a second screen will fail to do aswell.

 

[Prine]

It'll come down to Nintendo loyalists buying the Revolution or being so turned off by the new controller they dis-ban Nintendo forever. I really don't think they will draw in new gamers.

IMO the only reason Nintendo feels compelled to expand and reach non-gamers is because majority of current gamers are content with Sony leadership. Its not an action of salvation far from it, its about surviving, nuturing new minds with their new approach, gain rank and reputation with a new demographic.

If they succeed i believe they can be just as powerful as Sony

 

[AssMan]

Why Nintendo isnt even aiming for them(ie the nintendo loyalists)? Also if the DS can attract new gamers

Has there been any proof that Nintendo reached new gamers with the DS?

 

[krypt0nian]

Maybe.. just MAYBE.. it has something to do with the fact that the videogame industry wasn't exactly very active in 1889? Nintendo has been making videogames since pretty much the beginning (of videogames); Microsoft didn't even exist yet and Sony was making radios and televisions.

So what does time of entry matter? They were firsties? Who cares?

And someone claimed I made retarded statements. Lets see....in this thread....Nintendo was first and somehow, more noble, and loves their audience with a love that trancends huge corps.


Oh oh, and losing 3rd parties on the cube was a good thing as RARE now sucks, Dyack's a hack since leaving, and they were all bad anyway.

 

[Monk]

Has there been any proof that Nintendo reached new gamers with the DS?

Yes there is. The female demographic is like 20% and the age demographic is a lot older with the ds. I will get some proof(read links shortly)

 

[Particle Physicist]

i jumped in when you made retarded statements.

So what you're saying is that now you understand that I'm not the one who created this. Cool on you.

er.. ok. so, does anyone actually know krypt0nian ? is he. um.. special ?

 

[Ponn]

Yes there is. The female demographic is like 20% and the age demographic is a lot older with the ds. I will get some proof(read links shortly)

So girls never bought nintendo products before and neither did older people? I too would love to see this so called proof since I have heard this spouted off many times before about "DS Garnering non-gamers" but no one had any proof to back it up.

 

[koam]

So what does time of entry matter? They were firsties? Who cares?

Uhh. because of this stupid comment YOU made:

Each had an entry point. How dare a playing card printer enter Atari/Magnavox/Mattel's videogame industy?

Nintendo came in right after Atari and before Mattel. Their first console was a joint-venture with Magnavox. They weren't only a card company, they made tons of shit before making videogames. They were making real TOYS and GAMES since 1969.

 

[GitarooMan]

So girls never bought nintendo products before and neither did older people? I too would love to see this so called proof since I have heard this spouted off many times before about "DS Garnering non-gamers" but no one had any proof to back it up.

I would like to see some proof outside JP, if possible. It seems that a lot of the "new demographics for DS" talk relates to JP, I'd be curious to see if it has extended to the West.

 

[Amir0x]

Another Revolution thread trainwreck. This takes the cake, of course. Thread should have ended when this lil' engine car flipped off the track:

how is that bad? All Nintendo did was get rid of trash 3rd parties and useless 2nd parties.ie Rare and Dennis Dyack.

 

[krypt0nian]

Uhh. because of this stupid comment YOU made:



Nintendo came in right after Atari and before Mattel. Their first console was a joint-venture with Magnavox. They weren't only a card company, they made tons of shit before making videogames. They were making real TOYS and GAMES since 1969.

I was ridiculing the idea that SONY/MS don't belong somehow. You took it at face value somehow.

AND I notice that no one in this ridiculous tiff bothered to ridicule the other far more insane and "retarded" pro-Nintendo comments.

Terribly surprising.

 

[Spastic Colon]

Dyack's a hack since leaving

Dyack's always been more poseur than hack.

 

[krypt0nian]

Dyack's always been more poseur than hack.

With his quotes from philosophy and grandious rhetoric you are correct there.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Dyack's always been more poseur than hack.

and he has always been ridiculed as such.

maybe its just me, but by the way people have been reacting to comments here.. ive only noticed two fanboys in this discussion.