Viewing Thread:
"Ditch the Gamecube Nintendo (43% drop in profit)"

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.

munn wrote:
>
> But is it a more enjoyable game>
>
> How about Doom 3 v Halflife (1)?
>
> There is no way you could sya Doom 3 is better.

Depends on if you like to be scared, depends if you appreciate the heritage + other reasons.

Macintosh wrote:
> munn wrote:
> Macintosh wrote:
> gamesfreak wrote:
> Hahahahahahaha.
>
> I love it when they bring out the "PSP has more RAM, thus
> better
> system" arguement.
>
> The RAM available to the DS is more then apt enough to hold game
> information. As well as the flash carts being able to store stuff.
>
> It's as bad as these people who show off about their computers to
> show they are 1337.
>
> "I have 1024gb of RAM"
> - "Pfft, I think you will find its actually MB, u sux0rs"
> "My computer has a big graphics card"
> - "Can I caress it?"
>
>
> But more Ram (and better hardware) allows for better graphics, more
> compex games, better AI, better sound, etc, etc. Just compare todays
> PC games to those of 10 years ago. Modern games need loads more ram,
> video, and other stuff to make them work, and they are better for
> it.
> And even if a console appears to have too much ram, and power at
> launch, that at least allows game developers to exstract more
> performance 2 years later when they start designing their next game
> for the same console. Afterall, everyone knows ram requirements, and
> performance requirements are only going to go one way - up. If the
> big name manufacturers had not upgraded hardware over time, we would
> all still be running MS-DOS on a 540k PC.
>
> But because a game has more complex graphics sounds and animations
> doesn't mean it's better.
>
> Could you honestly tell me that Doom 3 is better than games like
> Ages
> Of Empires 2?
>
> What about DOOM 3 v DOOM or DOOM 2? Thats what I was getting at. The
> new version looks top notch. The old ones dont. Framerate, polygone
> cound, realtime shadows, its all in the new version, but is very,
> very limited in the original - due to the old, less powerful hardware
> of that time frame.

But is it a more enjoyable game>

How about Doom 3 v Halflife (1)?

There is no way you could sya Doom 3 is better.

Hedfix wrote:
> Please don't dignify the 'tards with anymore serious answers.

lcarus wrote:
> You can never have too much memory.

LIES.

Depending on the size of your address bus/word size you can have a maximum amount of memory

lcarus wrote:
> gamesfreak wrote:
> Gwizz wrote:
> On this memory subject, how can you say its not important when any
> developer will tell you thet often the biggest problem when trying
> to
> bring there ideas to life is the memory, and that the fastest way to
> get better performance is to stick more memory in!
> Do you talk to developers often then?
>
> No, but developers tell us through interviews. ALL THE TIME. It's
> true, more memory when the specs are given out essentially means more
> creative freedom - more objects, processes and other activities that
> can be stored into the mem at any one time.


Thank you. You took the words right out of my mouth!

Point is, it's ridiculous to argue that the DS has too little memory - you just have to look at the more complex dual-screen games like Metroid Prime: Hunters of Mario 64 to destroy that.

But there's an optimum amount, right?

There's a point where the benefits of that little extra memory don't outwiegh the hassle of putting it in, like space, compatability, battery eatage and price.

You can never have too much memory.

Yeah, and the DS has more than enough to account for all of that.

gamesfreak wrote:
> Gwizz wrote:
> On this memory subject, how can you say its not important when any
> developer will tell you thet often the biggest problem when trying
> to
> bring there ideas to life is the memory, and that the fastest way to
> get better performance is to stick more memory in! >
> Do you talk to developers often then?

No, but developers tell us through interviews. ALL THE TIME. It's true, more memory when the specs are given out essentially means more creative freedom - more objects, processes and other activities that can be stored into the mem at any one time.