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:

Not only that, with the arrival of Win XP and
> Mac OS X, you could have games that only run under the new OS, but
> also have games that dont work properly due to the new OS.

With the arrival of both these OS', backwards-compatability is actually a feature. OS 9 comes bundled with X, and XP has a Software-emulation mode allowing users to run old games designed from Windows 95 and up. Get your facts straight.



> With the PC you need to keep adding ram, hard disc space, better
> graphics, better cpu, newer OS, faster optical drive over the life
> span of the equipment. Not so with a console. Even with a 5 year old
> console, you can buy games for it that work "out of the
> box", no messing.

This is a load of tosh. Firstly, as gerrid said, PC's can be used years down the line.

Secondly, your point about the 5 year console- with the exception of the PS2 and DS, you'd have to buy 5 year-old games to play on your 5 year old console. If your PC is 6 years old, you can also buy 6 year old pieces of software.... I fail to see the point.

Agreed. If that was the case, why are flash games so addictive and remain a dominant slice of playtime in people's lives?

it does however, offer devs greater freedom over their design.

I think the most important point is that powerful hardware doesn't = better games.

Domaye wrote:

> I'm guessing you mean 3.0 ghz?

No.

Anyway I have Halflife 2 and its
> amazing what the deloper has done.... blah blah... 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..

I *think* what you're trying to point out here is that processor power isn't important for a great game, even something technically outstanding like Half Life 2. Of course, the DS doesn't exactly have that much horsepower to play with. But whatever, I'll reply anyway.

It was coded for the lowest specced PC possible, with graphical tweaks turned on where available. It doesn't affect the AI because all of it gets processed through the CPU; however, a slower CPU won't necessarily mean a relative reduction in AI time; it would simply get processed, but because there is more load on the slower processor, it would take everything down; the end result will be a further lack of features/detail the slower the CPU is. More HD thrashing is also likely. In your case, 2Ghz is far more than enough, so the AI processes are not affected. (Just for the record, the immediate AI in HL2 is terrible - worse than the prequel you can say).

I've asked for examples of 5 year old games which don't work on XP, or games which ONLY work on XP, and you haven't given any.

And your example is just like saying "what if your Gamecube controller doesn't work with your Xbox?!", or "what if you can't play PS2 games on your Gamecube!".

You said that PCs aren't for playing games. I'm showing you that they are just as valid a games platform as consoles, and, in many ways, better.

gerrid wrote:
Anyway, it doesn't matter, because it's not like you can't have an
> older operating system on your PC anyway. Which means that you can
> play ANY PC games.

Yea, nice idea - switch from Windows 98 to Windows XP and back again using just one hard disc, everytime you want to play a particular game. I can really see Mr/Mrs avarage doing that!

Any way, you need certain things in the new software for things like internet. USB support, latest version of QuickTime player. What about many of the USB, WinXP drivers for broadband internet connection?

And what if your PC is 5 years or older, and lacks USB, but you have a game controller which only works on USB?

"I know some kids"

Anyway, it doesn't matter, because it's not like you can't have an older operating system on your PC anyway. Which means that you can play ANY PC games.

I know some kids that have only recently got a PS2, so they have a number of PS1 games they still want to play.

Macintosh wrote:
> With the PC you need to keep adding ram, hard disc space, better
> graphics, better cpu, newer OS, faster optical drive over the life
> span of the equipment.

No you don't. Not if you buy a good, sensible PC in the first place. I've already told you that my PC is 4 years old and it still plays the newsest games. And I haven't added ANYTHING to it. So that disproves your point completely.

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. And exactly how many PS1
> games do you buy, or play, at all?

WELL THAT MAKES NO SENSE IF U WERE AN ANIMAL GAMER.