The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Personal Computer.
Are you with me now?
/pedantic
Are you with me now?
/pedantic
Hedfix wrote:
> 90% of people have something that computes that's personal?
>
> Mobile phones etc....
>
> Hmmmmmm
>
> /pedantic
He said PC :-)
Now thats pedantic!
> 90% of people have something that computes that's personal?
>
> Mobile phones etc....
>
> Hmmmmmm
>
> /pedantic
He said PC :-)
Now thats pedantic!
90% of people have something that computes that's personal?
Mobile phones etc....
Hmmmmmm
/pedantic
Mobile phones etc....
Hmmmmmm
/pedantic
gamesfreak wrote:
> I reckon about 90% of homes nowadays in this country have a PC of
> some sorts,
90%! Dont be daft! Thats ridiculous. More like 50 - 60%. I know loads of people who dont own a PC!
> I reckon about 90% of homes nowadays in this country have a PC of
> some sorts,
90%! Dont be daft! Thats ridiculous. More like 50 - 60%. I know loads of people who dont own a PC!
gamesfreak wrote:
> Macintosh wrote:
> if PC's were so much better at games,
> how come Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft are doing so well with their
> games consoles?
>
> When did he say PC's were better at games?
>
> And you comment is void anyway.
>
> I reckon about 90% of homes nowadays in this country have a PC of
> some sorts, you cannot calculate how many computers have been sold
> because there is no central machine to purchase, people can get a pre
> made machine from DELL/PC-World, one from a small computer shop or
> they can even build their own.
>
> I think you will find PC software has been doing extremely
> well over the past 10 or so years.
>
> The reason why the consoles are doing well is because they are simple
> to use, you put a game in, shove the cable in your TV and go. As well
> as having the concept of multiplayer gaming etc.
Your quite wrong. In recent times (the last few years), PC sales have been falling overall. Sure a few makes might make inroads, but overall the trend is down. Not only that, software is not shifting like it use to. It's their own fault, you see new software has been published too quickly after the previous release and many people have simply not bothered to upgrade. Corel Draw. 10, 11, and now 12 have been released too quickly (especially the newest versions). Quark Xpress 6 was release very soon after v5. Macromedia Freehand MX 11 is brand new, but MX 10 had a very short life. And it continues with Operating systems in the same way. The only reason for Windows XP and Mac OS X was to provide consumers with a different looking interface compared with their predecessors. And again, not everyone likes the new stuff, or see's a need for it. All of this twoddle in PC & Mac land results in a steep upgrade path, and comes back to my original statement (long ago), that most gamers dont want the hassle or the expense involved in PC gaming, hence the reason why the console option is better.
> Macintosh wrote:
> if PC's were so much better at games,
> how come Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft are doing so well with their
> games consoles?
>
> When did he say PC's were better at games?
>
> And you comment is void anyway.
>
> I reckon about 90% of homes nowadays in this country have a PC of
> some sorts, you cannot calculate how many computers have been sold
> because there is no central machine to purchase, people can get a pre
> made machine from DELL/PC-World, one from a small computer shop or
> they can even build their own.
>
> I think you will find PC software has been doing extremely
> well over the past 10 or so years.
>
> The reason why the consoles are doing well is because they are simple
> to use, you put a game in, shove the cable in your TV and go. As well
> as having the concept of multiplayer gaming etc.
Your quite wrong. In recent times (the last few years), PC sales have been falling overall. Sure a few makes might make inroads, but overall the trend is down. Not only that, software is not shifting like it use to. It's their own fault, you see new software has been published too quickly after the previous release and many people have simply not bothered to upgrade. Corel Draw. 10, 11, and now 12 have been released too quickly (especially the newest versions). Quark Xpress 6 was release very soon after v5. Macromedia Freehand MX 11 is brand new, but MX 10 had a very short life. And it continues with Operating systems in the same way. The only reason for Windows XP and Mac OS X was to provide consumers with a different looking interface compared with their predecessors. And again, not everyone likes the new stuff, or see's a need for it. All of this twoddle in PC & Mac land results in a steep upgrade path, and comes back to my original statement (long ago), that most gamers dont want the hassle or the expense involved in PC gaming, hence the reason why the console option is better.
*Watches Macintosh trying to back into a corner in a circular room*
Macintosh wrote:
> See how people back off when get them in a corner.
This is the dumbest thing I've ever read. It's the internet for crying out loud!
> See how people back off when get them in a corner.
This is the dumbest thing I've ever read. It's the internet for crying out loud!
Macintosh wrote:
> if PC's were so much better at games,
> how come Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft are doing so well with their
> games consoles?
When did he say PC's were better at games?
And you comment is void anyway.
I reckon about 90% of homes nowadays in this country have a PC of some sorts, you cannot calculate how many computers have been sold because there is no central machine to purchase, people can get a pre made machine from DELL/PC-World, one from a small computer shop or they can even build their own.
I think you will find PC software has been doing extremely well over the past 10 or so years.
The reason why the consoles are doing well is because they are simple to use, you put a game in, shove the cable in your TV and go. As well as having the concept of multiplayer gaming etc.
> if PC's were so much better at games,
> how come Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft are doing so well with their
> games consoles?
When did he say PC's were better at games?
And you comment is void anyway.
I reckon about 90% of homes nowadays in this country have a PC of some sorts, you cannot calculate how many computers have been sold because there is no central machine to purchase, people can get a pre made machine from DELL/PC-World, one from a small computer shop or they can even build their own.
I think you will find PC software has been doing extremely well over the past 10 or so years.
The reason why the consoles are doing well is because they are simple to use, you put a game in, shove the cable in your TV and go. As well as having the concept of multiplayer gaming etc.
gerrid wrote:
> Macintosh wrote:
> So you can make your PC purchase more future proof by buying a top
> spec machine (i will come back to this point as it is not 100% true
> anyway). What most do, is buy the one they can afford - this was
> more
> of an issue 5 years ago.
>
> How stupid are you exactly? I said that PCs can last 4 years. You
> said they couldn't. I proved they can. Whether people buy PCs that
> can last 4 years or not isn't the point. The point is that you are
> horribly wrong.
> I said it's expensive. I didn't say that it was what most people did,
> but I said that you could do it. And I did. I'm afraid you're wrong.
> and no amount of off-topic talk about DVDR is going to change that
> fact.
See how people back off when get them in a corner. As for Recordable DVD, thats not going off topic, its one of the main issue's when you choose a new computer, and therefore will continue to be a factor during it's life. Having to make sure you buy certain types of disc's for it is a perfect example of why console's are better for gamers. In anycase, regardless of that, if PC's were so much better at games, how come Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft are doing so well with their games consoles?
> Macintosh wrote:
> So you can make your PC purchase more future proof by buying a top
> spec machine (i will come back to this point as it is not 100% true
> anyway). What most do, is buy the one they can afford - this was
> more
> of an issue 5 years ago.
>
> How stupid are you exactly? I said that PCs can last 4 years. You
> said they couldn't. I proved they can. Whether people buy PCs that
> can last 4 years or not isn't the point. The point is that you are
> horribly wrong.
> I said it's expensive. I didn't say that it was what most people did,
> but I said that you could do it. And I did. I'm afraid you're wrong.
> and no amount of off-topic talk about DVDR is going to change that
> fact.
See how people back off when get them in a corner. As for Recordable DVD, thats not going off topic, its one of the main issue's when you choose a new computer, and therefore will continue to be a factor during it's life. Having to make sure you buy certain types of disc's for it is a perfect example of why console's are better for gamers. In anycase, regardless of that, if PC's were so much better at games, how come Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft are doing so well with their games consoles?
Macintosh wrote:
> So you can make your PC purchase more future proof by buying a top
> spec machine (i will come back to this point as it is not 100% true
> anyway). What most do, is buy the one they can afford - this was more
> of an issue 5 years ago.
How stupid are you exactly? I said that PCs can last 4 years. You said they couldn't. I proved they can. Whether people buy PCs that can last 4 years or not isn't the point. The point is that you are horribly wrong.
I said it's expensive. I didn't say that it was what most people did, but I said that you could do it. And I did. I'm afraid you're wrong. and no amount of off-topic talk about DVDR is going to change that fact.
> So you can make your PC purchase more future proof by buying a top
> spec machine (i will come back to this point as it is not 100% true
> anyway). What most do, is buy the one they can afford - this was more
> of an issue 5 years ago.
How stupid are you exactly? I said that PCs can last 4 years. You said they couldn't. I proved they can. Whether people buy PCs that can last 4 years or not isn't the point. The point is that you are horribly wrong.
I said it's expensive. I didn't say that it was what most people did, but I said that you could do it. And I did. I'm afraid you're wrong. and no amount of off-topic talk about DVDR is going to change that fact.
Page: