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.

Domaye wrote:
> 4/5 year old 2ghz with dvd rom drive and gig of ram... id consider my
> pc as oldish and it works with all the games i play....silly troll.

It can't be 4/5 years old then, 4/5 years ago the best you could do would be like a 1.1Ghz duron.

Or the Intel equivalent of course.

Actually it would be a thunderbird, not a duron.

1) PC gaming does not suck
2) Console gaming is not better

Would you care to elaborate my dear?

You are both wrong.

And you have to sit on a uncomfortable chair.
That's the main problem with it.

FinalFantasyFanatic wrote:
> PC gaming sucks.

Yeh, you can't get a couple of mates round to play multiplayer on PC easily. Console gaming far better.

PC gaming sucks.

4/5 year old 2ghz with dvd rom drive and gig of ram... id consider my pc as oldish and it works with all the games i play....silly troll.

I have a 4 year old 48x CD-ROM drive.

Ok here we go I'm going to show you how rubbish you really are.

Macintosh wrote:
> 32x speed CD-ROM drive. Older PC's just don't have a drive this
> fast.

My PC is 4 years old and it has a 32x CD drive

> 16Mb Graphics card. Older PC's seldom had this much graphics memory
> (my one has just 8Mb)

What on earth are you on about? Define an 'older' PC. Just because you bought a rubbish bottom of the line PC doesn't mean that that's all that was available. You could get 64MB cards in 2000.


> 2.0Ghz CPU (my 5 year old PC doesnt have one of these).

So automatically that means that NO PC over 4 years old had a 2GHz processor, then?

> 512Mb Ram - most older PC's can even take this much Ram!

Well my PC can and it's 4 years old. So, er, you're wrong. What is 'most older PCs'? You mean your rubbish PC? That's hardly "most people" is it?


> 6 CD-ROM discs or 2 DVD-ROMs - older PC's dont have DVD-ROM drives.

Balls. My PC has a DVD drive and it's "old"


> 5.5Gb of unused hard drive space - flippin heck, my PC only has a
> 6.0Gb hard drive

Who's fault is that?


Look, I've proved to you that 4 years ago you could buy PCs that are capable of playing todays games. Because I have one.
Just because you bought some electronic typewriter doesn't mean that old PCs can't play games.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - if you buy a sensible, top of the line PC, then it'll last you at least as long as any console. Obviously the lower the specs of your machine when you buy it the less time it's going to last. I said that it's expensive, but I said it could be done. You can't prove me wrong. I'm right.