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.

Macintosh wrote:
> flippin heck, my PC only has a
> 6.0Gb hard drive

hahahahaha
Haven't you got fed up with Windows 95 yet?

Macintosh wrote:
> So, if you want to play the latest, largest PC games, you need a
> nearly new PC or a new PC.

How stupid are you? I've JUST TOLD YOU that my PC is 4 years old and it plays new games. It wasn't even top of the line when I got it. I could have bought a PC that was 2.0GHz with 512MB RAM 4 years ago, with an 80GB hard drive.

Get it through your thick skull - you're wrong.

"I bought a new game for my machine but I have to upgrade it before it's good enough to play it."

There are plenty of games that would have trouble on older PC's......

Age of Mythology
32x speed CD-ROM drive. Older PC's just don't have a drive this fast.
16Mb Graphics card. Older PC's seldom had this much graphics memory (my one has just 8Mb)

DOOM3 (min requirements)
2.0Ghz CPU (my 5 year old PC doesnt have one of these).
512Mb Ram - most older PC's can even take this much Ram!
2.0Gb hard drive space.
GForce3 graphics card.

DOOM3 (rec requirements)
3.0Ghz Intel P4
515-1Gb Ram

Unreal Tournament 2004
6 CD-ROM discs or 2 DVD-ROMs - older PC's dont have DVD-ROM drives.
5.5Gb of unused hard drive space - flippin heck, my PC only has a 6.0Gb hard drive

So, if you want to play the latest, largest PC games, you need a nearly new PC or a new PC.

Pity you would have to have a top notch PC to play Doom 3, still that is one of the many ways PC gaming is better than console

Doom probably had better level design than either.

Half Life is much better than Doom 3, which is just Doom with nice graphics.

I doubt that. Half-Life was a stepback in gameplay, but with a good story.

Hedfix wrote:
> 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.

Ah but SHHH.

I despise Halflife (I really do, I think it's the second most overrated game ever after Goldeneye), but it's still a lot better than Doom 3.


A LOT better.

gerrid wrote:
> 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.

Transport Tycoon Deluxe.

OK that's about 10 years old, but still.

:-(