The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I know some of you will point out the fact that, in spite of the loss compared to last year's earnings, Nintendo has still accrued a profit to the tune of $600,000,000. While that is a large sum of money it needs to be realized that the amount of that profit is not too far from being HALF of their previous year's profits. That means that Nintendo has that much money LESS to put into things like research and development for things like new games and new systems. Also, game companies are less likely to put their time and money into a company that posts losses as massive as 43%. If this trend continues, it could have some nasty repercussions. People could lose their jobs (I feel sure some heads have already rolled after the news of a profit loss this significant), for one thing. And companies will not want to invest in another company that will not post a meaningful profit for their efforts. So yeah, Nintendo still posted a profit. But when that profit is in the shadow of a previous year that was 43% HIGHER, then the 'profit' tends to lose significance. Just some things to consider.
The Gamecube is costing Nintendo big and sagging sales are a large part of their problem, ditch the deadwood before it's to late.
The Gamecube is costing Nintendo big and sagging sales are a large part of their problem, ditch the deadwood before it's to late.
Page:
I never knew their was a time limit on how long you could play a game you liked. 3 years and that's your lot does not sound very good value for money.
Gadget boy wrote:
> you can't
> guarantee that you 5 year old game will play on the new OS.
Oh dear me. They buildin backwards compatibility. Give me an example of a 5 year old game that won't work on XP. And exactly how many PS1 games do you buy, or play, at all?
> you can't
> guarantee that you 5 year old game will play on the new OS.
Oh dear me. They buildin backwards compatibility. Give me an example of a 5 year old game that won't work on XP. And exactly how many PS1 games do you buy, or play, at all?
Both The DS and PSP have been released in america and japan so when rleased in england, the ds will sell more because the psp aint out yet, super smashing great
1 MONTH TO GO WEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
1 MONTH TO GO WEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
gerrid wrote:
> Oh dear Macintosh. "that's what consoles are for?"
> You are missing out on a LOT of great games with that attitude.
>
> Oh and you saying about having to upgrade PCs - you have to do it
> with consoles. Actually you're FORCED to do it wil consoles. My
> computer is 4 years old and it runs Rome Total War, and it's only got
> 256MB RAM. If I put in some more (at a cost of about £30), I
> could play HL2 and all the new games out. If I wanted to play some
> XB360 or PS3 games however, I'd have to shell out a full £200.
> PC games also get cheaper quicker, so you spend less money on games
> anyway.
The life span of a console is much longer than a PC when about games. Plus, many new games require older computers to have the latest OS installed - which usually means a reduction in speed, and uses up more ram and hard disc. Not only that, with the arrival of Win XP and Mac OS X, you could have games that only run under the new OS, but also have games that dont work properly due to the new OS.
With the PC you need to keep adding ram, hard disc space, better graphics, better cpu, newer OS, faster optical drive over the life span of the equipment. Not so with a console. Even with a 5 year old console, you can buy games for it that work "out of the box", no messing.
> Oh dear Macintosh. "that's what consoles are for?"
> You are missing out on a LOT of great games with that attitude.
>
> Oh and you saying about having to upgrade PCs - you have to do it
> with consoles. Actually you're FORCED to do it wil consoles. My
> computer is 4 years old and it runs Rome Total War, and it's only got
> 256MB RAM. If I put in some more (at a cost of about £30), I
> could play HL2 and all the new games out. If I wanted to play some
> XB360 or PS3 games however, I'd have to shell out a full £200.
> PC games also get cheaper quicker, so you spend less money on games
> anyway.
The life span of a console is much longer than a PC when about games. Plus, many new games require older computers to have the latest OS installed - which usually means a reduction in speed, and uses up more ram and hard disc. Not only that, with the arrival of Win XP and Mac OS X, you could have games that only run under the new OS, but also have games that dont work properly due to the new OS.
With the PC you need to keep adding ram, hard disc space, better graphics, better cpu, newer OS, faster optical drive over the life span of the equipment. Not so with a console. Even with a 5 year old console, you can buy games for it that work "out of the box", no messing.
Just be quiet. Why is the console cycle going to INCREASE when it has been falling over that past 3 generations?
And I maintain that if you buy sensibly then your PC will last you a good long time, at least 4 years. yes you run the risk of certain games not running, but COME ON. There are 3 consoles. If you buy one that means you don't get the games from the other two. If you have a PC then you can play ALL PC games, minus some releases 3 years in the future.
And I maintain that if you buy sensibly then your PC will last you a good long time, at least 4 years. yes you run the risk of certain games not running, but COME ON. There are 3 consoles. If you buy one that means you don't get the games from the other two. If you have a PC then you can play ALL PC games, minus some releases 3 years in the future.
Another point as well with the OS systems changing so often you can't guarantee that you 5 year old game will play on the new OS. I on the otherhand can say that PS1 games play fine on my PS2.
gerrid wrote:
> You can't logically argue that PCs are more expensive because they
> need upgrading. Obviously they are more expensive in the first place,
> but if you're sensible your PC will last you a good 4 years, the same
> as a console.
That's complete rubbish if you have a console at least you are guaranteed that the game will play on your console unlike a PC which is dated the minute you buy it. The console cycle is also likely to increase to 5 to 6 years and that is an age in PC terms.
> You can't logically argue that PCs are more expensive because they
> need upgrading. Obviously they are more expensive in the first place,
> but if you're sensible your PC will last you a good 4 years, the same
> as a console.
That's complete rubbish if you have a console at least you are guaranteed that the game will play on your console unlike a PC which is dated the minute you buy it. The console cycle is also likely to increase to 5 to 6 years and that is an age in PC terms.
One of the PCs in my house is about 2.5 years old and it still plays Half-Life 2 to an acceptable standard (1024x768 @ medium detail).
Depends on what games you want to play.
You can't logically argue that PCs are more expensive because they need upgrading. Obviously they are more expensive in the first place, but if you're sensible your PC will last you a good 4 years, the same as a console.
Page: