The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
[URL]http://news.teamxbox.com/xbox/6456/Microsoft-Interested-in-Buying-Nintendo[/URL]
Discuss.
Discuss.
Page:
This is for you all, [URL]http://www.0db.us/pictures/fark_pics/arguing.jpg[/URL]
gamesfreak wrote:
> Why will they be "forced" to make adult orientated games?
> The whole idea of a merger would be to attain that "Nintendo
> magic" or whatever you call it.
Nintendo would be the Microsoft department in charge of making games systems. If Nintendo had their way it would be "for everyon". Microsoft would insist Nintendo include adults software from third parties and companies like Bungie.
> Why will they be "forced" to make adult orientated games?
> The whole idea of a merger would be to attain that "Nintendo
> magic" or whatever you call it.
Nintendo would be the Microsoft department in charge of making games systems. If Nintendo had their way it would be "for everyon". Microsoft would insist Nintendo include adults software from third parties and companies like Bungie.
And anyway, why is this still going?
It was a newspaper interview, thats all.
It was a newspaper interview, thats all.
If Microsoft bought Nintendo, they could get Nintendo to do whatever they like expecting sales just because "Nintendo" is on the packaging.
Why will they be "forced" to make adult orientated games? The whole idea of a merger would be to attain that "Nintendo magic" or whatever you call it.
Sure, Microsoft would probably say to Nintendo that Xbox LIVE should be considered when they make a game
Sure, Microsoft would probably say to Nintendo that Xbox LIVE should be considered when they make a game
That I would accept - if on a permanent basis.
So tell me NB, considering Yamauchi is head of Nintendo (in reality) and owns the majority of the shares...
How, if Nintendo say no, will Nintendo be able to sell?
As for what I mean by Nintendo being in charge because they are better what I mean is thus:
Nintendo would be forced to have multiple mediums in their machine, Nintendo will be forced to have more and more adult software avalible for the machine and Nintendo will be forced to make online games.
I'm not saying Microsoft GAMES are worse than Nintendo's I'm saying that Nintendo are just a better games company. It's what they do. Microsoft's hardware and software department for making games and consoles are compartivly tiny compared to Nintendo. A company that has 4 hardware development teams, one that experiments with new gameplay ideas.
Remember Nintendo have been doing this much... much... much longer than Microsoft. Microsoft know how to create power but they aren't quite as good at developing a machine that developers can create effective games for. Nintendo make games, the same people that make the games design the controllers and these same people design the ACTUAL system. Nintendo are huge, they aren't some little company as I'm sure you know. If Microsoft are going to buy Nintendo they'll want their money's worth, they'll take Nintendo's machine, trust in Nintendo's experience, ask them to make changes in order to compete more directly with Sony...
But overall Microsoft games studio's and the entire X-box department will suddenly be called "Nintendo - A microsoft company". Microsoft will almost certainly take control of Nintendo's western offices but Microsoft will not dare argue with Nintendo over Eastern decisions. NOA and NOE will almost certainly become filled with the current X-box PR men but Nintendo of Japan will remain as it is. Nintendo will be in charge of making games, Nintendo will be in charge of hardware development (with all the avalible hardware and experience Microsoft can offer as well)...
Overall if Microsoft bought Nintendo, it would be Nintendo that would become the main competitor... Nintendo won't just become another part of 'Microsoft Games Studio's' MGS will become apart of Nintendo.
Microsoft will control advertisement and make sure there are plenty of adult games and make sure they counteract Sony. Nintendo will continue as normal, with a new owner.
How, if Nintendo say no, will Nintendo be able to sell?
As for what I mean by Nintendo being in charge because they are better what I mean is thus:
Nintendo would be forced to have multiple mediums in their machine, Nintendo will be forced to have more and more adult software avalible for the machine and Nintendo will be forced to make online games.
I'm not saying Microsoft GAMES are worse than Nintendo's I'm saying that Nintendo are just a better games company. It's what they do. Microsoft's hardware and software department for making games and consoles are compartivly tiny compared to Nintendo. A company that has 4 hardware development teams, one that experiments with new gameplay ideas.
Remember Nintendo have been doing this much... much... much longer than Microsoft. Microsoft know how to create power but they aren't quite as good at developing a machine that developers can create effective games for. Nintendo make games, the same people that make the games design the controllers and these same people design the ACTUAL system. Nintendo are huge, they aren't some little company as I'm sure you know. If Microsoft are going to buy Nintendo they'll want their money's worth, they'll take Nintendo's machine, trust in Nintendo's experience, ask them to make changes in order to compete more directly with Sony...
But overall Microsoft games studio's and the entire X-box department will suddenly be called "Nintendo - A microsoft company". Microsoft will almost certainly take control of Nintendo's western offices but Microsoft will not dare argue with Nintendo over Eastern decisions. NOA and NOE will almost certainly become filled with the current X-box PR men but Nintendo of Japan will remain as it is. Nintendo will be in charge of making games, Nintendo will be in charge of hardware development (with all the avalible hardware and experience Microsoft can offer as well)...
Overall if Microsoft bought Nintendo, it would be Nintendo that would become the main competitor... Nintendo won't just become another part of 'Microsoft Games Studio's' MGS will become apart of Nintendo.
Microsoft will control advertisement and make sure there are plenty of adult games and make sure they counteract Sony. Nintendo will continue as normal, with a new owner.
Mav wrote:
> I personally think it'll never happen. Nintendo have stated that the
> day they cease hardware production is the day they close their doors,
It really is not their decision. Shigsy & Co work for US, the shareholders, not some corporate philosophy. There are two ways of being taken over, friendly takeover or merger or a hostile takeover or merger. If Microsoft had to go hostile they would still manage it, because all they have to do is give enough money for enough shareholders to sell out.
> But I'm trying to put across my opinion that Microsoft acquiring
> Nintendo would be a horrible prospect.
On the other hand I believe it would be a great thing for both companies, the shareholders and even more importantly, the gamers themselves. Anything to put Sony to the sword is good in my books.
> Microsoft have been successful in their field because they have
> essentially monopolised it. That is what they want to do with the
> games industry,
Entering the console market was a defensive move, not offensive. The risk was that Sony would control too much of the home electronics market, making a console the centre of entertainment. The more powerful Sony got, the more it threatened the PCs position - and with that, Microsoft themselves. Sony had to be stopped, had to be slowed down. Sure, the Xbox has cost Microsoft money, but it has also led to big losses for Sony and in a financial war of attrition, Microsoft would win.
> and I would be upset to see such a negative
> philosophy brought to Nintendo - who work in the opposite way.
That is simply rubbish. Nintendo want to be the only player, just like any other company. They made sure they pretty much controlled the handheld market for years.
> Microsoft have lost billions on the Xbox,
Not as much as most people think, not in plural, now making money.
> are third place in the console market
That one will be argued over forever. If they are in third place it isn't by much and with a high chance they would still overtake Nintendo. The Xbox is going to have a large sales spike at Christmas with Halo 2 and a price cut.
> and still lose money on each one sold. In contrast,
> Nintendo are business geniuses - and that's not far from the truth.
> They can afford to sell a smallish (compared to PS2 sales figures)
> number of consoles at a very low price and still make a very healthy
> profit.
Eh? Nintendo lose money on the Gamecube hardware as well you know. And you do realise that a £600 million loss is not considered a healthy profit?
>Their strategy with the GBA SP, DS and GBA 2 is also
> brilliant.
In what way is it brilliant? It really is not big and clever to compete with yourself. They will realise that.
> Nintendo work effectively and they do it well. They don't want nor
> need anybody like Microsoft to come along and change that.
If they were effective then they would have a bigger market share and be making money, lots of it – not losing it.
Foszy wrote:
> But all you have to do is own 25% of a market share and you are
> classified as a monopoly. Its when you start to abuse it that the
> governments get pi$$ed off.
Meanwhile Sony have around 75%, so no worries about MS dominating yet then.
Dringo wrote:
> gamesfreak wrote:
> It would be a good prospect for Nintendo though.
>
> Nintendo would become an in-house developer, like Bungie.
>
> Rubbish.
>
> Microsoft tried buying Nintendo before they considered the X-box.
>
> If Nintendo were bought out then Nintendo would become THE company.
> Sure Microsoft would add resources to them, capital and their games
> studios but Nintendo would make the decisions about the games, how
> they are made, the innovative ideas etc... etc...
I don't think so. Sure Nintendo in that case would be the biggest of the Microsoft Game Studios, but Bungie and Rare would still be around as well and would have input. Remember Nintendo do not make consoles that appeal to other companies that much, hence the lack of support for the N64. EA would make more money for Microsoft developing for Xbox Next, Xenon, whatever, than Nintendo would because EA shift a lot more games than Nintendo. Microsoft would want to keep EA etc happy as well.
> X-box would dissapear and the "revolution" console would be
> the next step. Microsoft may enforce extra features and of course
> insist on certain games being released but other than that Nintendo
> would have the main control. Mainly because Nintendo are bigger and
> more experienced.
I think Nintendo under Microsoft ownership would be forced to comply with the current way of doing things rather than having Nintendo's corporate culture imposed on Microsoft's game division. I accept that Nintendo are bigger in a physical way, more staff, more first party titles etc, and admittedly they are more experienced having been around for longer. But they are not more successful now as witnessed by Nintendo falling from being the biggest most innovative and rich player in video games to actually struggling.
> Nintendo are worth BILLIONS they have billions and billions in liquid
> assets alone. I'm not sure even Microsoft would be willing to spend
> as much money as they'd have to.
Microsoft bought Rare for over £300 million. They could secure Nintendo for less than £10 billion. That is less than thirty times cost wise, a lot more value wise for Microsoft.
> But Nintendo are far more experienced and well frankly better than
> Microsoft. If Microsoft bought Nintendo they'd get their money's
> worth and let Nintendo carry on.
Frankly better?! Balls. Nor are Microsoft “better” than Nintendo as they have very few areas in which they actually compete. Nintendo make the best platformers. Microsoft make the best FPS. Nintendo make the best adventure games. Microsoft make the best racers. There is very little overlap and as such Nintendo aren’t better. If they were then they would be the market leaders.
However it is that fit that makes Nintendo such an attractive proposition for Microsoft. Imagine Halo, Zelda, Project Gotham Racing, Perfect Dark and Mario all on the one console. Sony just would not be able to compete with such a strong line up. The Xbox 2 would sell far more units with Nintendo on board than without and those extra units would translate to even more games sold and more money.
Oh and the link was out by $800 million, it is only $5.4 billion in liquid assets. Still masses, but not as much.
> I personally think it'll never happen. Nintendo have stated that the
> day they cease hardware production is the day they close their doors,
It really is not their decision. Shigsy & Co work for US, the shareholders, not some corporate philosophy. There are two ways of being taken over, friendly takeover or merger or a hostile takeover or merger. If Microsoft had to go hostile they would still manage it, because all they have to do is give enough money for enough shareholders to sell out.
> But I'm trying to put across my opinion that Microsoft acquiring
> Nintendo would be a horrible prospect.
On the other hand I believe it would be a great thing for both companies, the shareholders and even more importantly, the gamers themselves. Anything to put Sony to the sword is good in my books.
> Microsoft have been successful in their field because they have
> essentially monopolised it. That is what they want to do with the
> games industry,
Entering the console market was a defensive move, not offensive. The risk was that Sony would control too much of the home electronics market, making a console the centre of entertainment. The more powerful Sony got, the more it threatened the PCs position - and with that, Microsoft themselves. Sony had to be stopped, had to be slowed down. Sure, the Xbox has cost Microsoft money, but it has also led to big losses for Sony and in a financial war of attrition, Microsoft would win.
> and I would be upset to see such a negative
> philosophy brought to Nintendo - who work in the opposite way.
That is simply rubbish. Nintendo want to be the only player, just like any other company. They made sure they pretty much controlled the handheld market for years.
> Microsoft have lost billions on the Xbox,
Not as much as most people think, not in plural, now making money.
> are third place in the console market
That one will be argued over forever. If they are in third place it isn't by much and with a high chance they would still overtake Nintendo. The Xbox is going to have a large sales spike at Christmas with Halo 2 and a price cut.
> and still lose money on each one sold. In contrast,
> Nintendo are business geniuses - and that's not far from the truth.
> They can afford to sell a smallish (compared to PS2 sales figures)
> number of consoles at a very low price and still make a very healthy
> profit.
Eh? Nintendo lose money on the Gamecube hardware as well you know. And you do realise that a £600 million loss is not considered a healthy profit?
>Their strategy with the GBA SP, DS and GBA 2 is also
> brilliant.
In what way is it brilliant? It really is not big and clever to compete with yourself. They will realise that.
> Nintendo work effectively and they do it well. They don't want nor
> need anybody like Microsoft to come along and change that.
If they were effective then they would have a bigger market share and be making money, lots of it – not losing it.
Foszy wrote:
> But all you have to do is own 25% of a market share and you are
> classified as a monopoly. Its when you start to abuse it that the
> governments get pi$$ed off.
Meanwhile Sony have around 75%, so no worries about MS dominating yet then.
Dringo wrote:
> gamesfreak wrote:
> It would be a good prospect for Nintendo though.
>
> Nintendo would become an in-house developer, like Bungie.
>
> Rubbish.
>
> Microsoft tried buying Nintendo before they considered the X-box.
>
> If Nintendo were bought out then Nintendo would become THE company.
> Sure Microsoft would add resources to them, capital and their games
> studios but Nintendo would make the decisions about the games, how
> they are made, the innovative ideas etc... etc...
I don't think so. Sure Nintendo in that case would be the biggest of the Microsoft Game Studios, but Bungie and Rare would still be around as well and would have input. Remember Nintendo do not make consoles that appeal to other companies that much, hence the lack of support for the N64. EA would make more money for Microsoft developing for Xbox Next, Xenon, whatever, than Nintendo would because EA shift a lot more games than Nintendo. Microsoft would want to keep EA etc happy as well.
> X-box would dissapear and the "revolution" console would be
> the next step. Microsoft may enforce extra features and of course
> insist on certain games being released but other than that Nintendo
> would have the main control. Mainly because Nintendo are bigger and
> more experienced.
I think Nintendo under Microsoft ownership would be forced to comply with the current way of doing things rather than having Nintendo's corporate culture imposed on Microsoft's game division. I accept that Nintendo are bigger in a physical way, more staff, more first party titles etc, and admittedly they are more experienced having been around for longer. But they are not more successful now as witnessed by Nintendo falling from being the biggest most innovative and rich player in video games to actually struggling.
> Nintendo are worth BILLIONS they have billions and billions in liquid
> assets alone. I'm not sure even Microsoft would be willing to spend
> as much money as they'd have to.
Microsoft bought Rare for over £300 million. They could secure Nintendo for less than £10 billion. That is less than thirty times cost wise, a lot more value wise for Microsoft.
> But Nintendo are far more experienced and well frankly better than
> Microsoft. If Microsoft bought Nintendo they'd get their money's
> worth and let Nintendo carry on.
Frankly better?! Balls. Nor are Microsoft “better” than Nintendo as they have very few areas in which they actually compete. Nintendo make the best platformers. Microsoft make the best FPS. Nintendo make the best adventure games. Microsoft make the best racers. There is very little overlap and as such Nintendo aren’t better. If they were then they would be the market leaders.
However it is that fit that makes Nintendo such an attractive proposition for Microsoft. Imagine Halo, Zelda, Project Gotham Racing, Perfect Dark and Mario all on the one console. Sony just would not be able to compete with such a strong line up. The Xbox 2 would sell far more units with Nintendo on board than without and those extra units would translate to even more games sold and more money.
Oh and the link was out by $800 million, it is only $5.4 billion in liquid assets. Still masses, but not as much.
Grrrrrrr
It's called Revolution! GC2 indeed.
It's called Revolution! GC2 indeed.
Dringo wrote:
> I was close, $6.2 billion in liquid assets:
>
Thats a lot of money. But nothing on Microsoft, why doesnt Nintendo use that money for expansion or extra technological research? More interestingly they havent confirmed the GC2? I thought they had?
> I was close, $6.2 billion in liquid assets:
>
Thats a lot of money. But nothing on Microsoft, why doesnt Nintendo use that money for expansion or extra technological research? More interestingly they havent confirmed the GC2? I thought they had?
Page: