The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
They usually launch cheaper anyway.
I've never had to pay more than £30 for a PC game. console games have cost me up to double that in the past.
I've never had to pay more than £30 for a PC game. console games have cost me up to double that in the past.
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.
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.
I don't play games on the Mac (or the PC). Thats what consoles are for.
Once reason is that whichever computer you use for games, the developers are always pushing the requirements up. So while a new game is fast on a new computer, a new game in 2 years time on the same computer will most likely be on the slow side. Like with the post re Halo, you have to cut the graphics quality down in order for the game to work at a fair turn of speed. This then forces you into upgrade after upgrade of the hardware to try and keep up. Not only that, many computer games install drivers and other bits into your Windows or Mac OS setup, which is not always a good thing.
Once reason is that whichever computer you use for games, the developers are always pushing the requirements up. So while a new game is fast on a new computer, a new game in 2 years time on the same computer will most likely be on the slow side. Like with the post re Halo, you have to cut the graphics quality down in order for the game to work at a fair turn of speed. This then forces you into upgrade after upgrade of the hardware to try and keep up. Not only that, many computer games install drivers and other bits into your Windows or Mac OS setup, which is not always a good thing.
Dunno really, some games dont work on em :P
Now hush! I'm poking the troll...
Now hush! I'm poking the troll...
Er, whats wrong with having a Mac?
Macintosh wrote:
> G5
Har har you have a mac! *shoves all my pc only games in his face*
> G5
Har har you have a mac! *shoves all my pc only games in his face*
lcarus wrote:
>
> For the DS, yes. There is no need for huge worlds when most of the
> games will be 2d/simple 3D, and developers at least can focus on
> something having been given the specs. But it's common when making
> games to suggest, "Oh, wouldn't it be great if...?" or when
> there are problems allocating memory space, when that little bit
> extra would save a lot of fiddling, less technical sacrificing and a
> much smoother development period.
>
> Speaking in more general terms, there will always be a need for
> greater memory - games or otherwise. Real time, advanced AI just
> isn't close without at least a 30GHz processor and gigs of fast
> access RAM.
I'm guessing you mean 3.0 ghz? Anyway I have Halflife 2 and its amazing what the deloper has done. I'd say it currently has the best physics and AI in any game (its a little short but its minted all the same). I run it with a 2.0 ghz processor a 64 meg graphics card and a gig of ram (dont know if its high speed buts its 4-5 years old so im guessing its not). The game still looks awesoe even though ive got most the settings on low. This doesnt affect the AI in anyway. It doesnt affect the game in anyway , just the graphics slightly. so I think your argument is redundant..
>
> For the DS, yes. There is no need for huge worlds when most of the
> games will be 2d/simple 3D, and developers at least can focus on
> something having been given the specs. But it's common when making
> games to suggest, "Oh, wouldn't it be great if...?" or when
> there are problems allocating memory space, when that little bit
> extra would save a lot of fiddling, less technical sacrificing and a
> much smoother development period.
>
> Speaking in more general terms, there will always be a need for
> greater memory - games or otherwise. Real time, advanced AI just
> isn't close without at least a 30GHz processor and gigs of fast
> access RAM.
I'm guessing you mean 3.0 ghz? Anyway I have Halflife 2 and its amazing what the deloper has done. I'd say it currently has the best physics and AI in any game (its a little short but its minted all the same). I run it with a 2.0 ghz processor a 64 meg graphics card and a gig of ram (dont know if its high speed buts its 4-5 years old so im guessing its not). The game still looks awesoe even though ive got most the settings on low. This doesnt affect the AI in anyway. It doesnt affect the game in anyway , just the graphics slightly. so I think your argument is redundant..
Macintosh wrote:
> Thats right, I dont need to install 8Gb of Ram - yet.
> So, 10 years from now, 8Gb of Ram could well be the standard
> installation.
10 years away.
Maybe.
Now now though.
You've got to remember that RAM uses power. Power = Battery usage.
This arguement is becoming pretty pointless now anyway, we're having a conversation about computers, not the DS. The chip within the DS is probably no way near x86/PPC etc and most likely handles it's memory different from conventional PC's etc.
> Thats right, I dont need to install 8Gb of Ram - yet.
> So, 10 years from now, 8Gb of Ram could well be the standard
> installation.
10 years away.
Maybe.
Now now though.
You've got to remember that RAM uses power. Power = Battery usage.
This arguement is becoming pretty pointless now anyway, we're having a conversation about computers, not the DS. The chip within the DS is probably no way near x86/PPC etc and most likely handles it's memory different from conventional PC's etc.
Biggles got 0wned! :-P
Notorious Biggles wrote:
> Macintosh wrote:
> Developers often say that PS2 and PSP "are a dream to design
> for".
>
> In my now retired-from-coding professional opinion... BULL! There is
> no way on earth that vector processors and MIPS chips are a dream to
> design for.
>
> The only way you could have the PS2 or PSP down as a dream to design
> for is you are solely talking about the paper designs. Certainly not
> easy hardware wise.
>
> Your hardware knowledge doesn't wash with me.
>
> Just out of curiosity, what is your PC setup? 1.5 GB is a baaaad
> number, it means it isn't running in dual channel, and the majority
> of systems that could support as much as 8 GB (i.e. 64 bit systems)
> have dual channel support. Which means you are in fact wasting
> bandwidth. Although, certain things would be better off having the
> extra space over the extra bandwidth.
On a G5, you have to install in pairs.
So,
2x512Mb
2x256Mb
> Macintosh wrote:
> Developers often say that PS2 and PSP "are a dream to design
> for".
>
> In my now retired-from-coding professional opinion... BULL! There is
> no way on earth that vector processors and MIPS chips are a dream to
> design for.
>
> The only way you could have the PS2 or PSP down as a dream to design
> for is you are solely talking about the paper designs. Certainly not
> easy hardware wise.
>
> Your hardware knowledge doesn't wash with me.
>
> Just out of curiosity, what is your PC setup? 1.5 GB is a baaaad
> number, it means it isn't running in dual channel, and the majority
> of systems that could support as much as 8 GB (i.e. 64 bit systems)
> have dual channel support. Which means you are in fact wasting
> bandwidth. Although, certain things would be better off having the
> extra space over the extra bandwidth.
On a G5, you have to install in pairs.
So,
2x512Mb
2x256Mb
Page: