The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3134651.stm
Page:
By the way Cooky you are totally and 100% correct.
It also enables more games quicker... and besides games are cheaper now... a new Nintendo game costs £30 and a new N64 one would cost about £40 at this stage in the war.
It also enables more games quicker... and besides games are cheaper now... a new Nintendo game costs £30 and a new N64 one would cost about £40 at this stage in the war.
cookie monster wrote:
> £100 with a game and those cubes would be flying out of these
> warehouses.
GameCubes with wings would fly out of the warehouses.
Actually, that would be great to have...
Take note, Nintendo.
> £100 with a game and those cubes would be flying out of these
> warehouses.
GameCubes with wings would fly out of the warehouses.
Actually, that would be great to have...
Take note, Nintendo.
BUT BELLDANDY'S ALWAYS RIGHT IT TELLS YE!!!
Goddess Belldandy wrote:
> Microsoft claims 2nd place, latest interview with their UK chief in
> OXM confirms that.
The GameCube's in second place, and that's a fact. Recent worldwide figures from statistical analysts Reuters show that Nintendo have sold 9.6 million units to Microsoft's 9.4 million Xboxes.
> Microsoft claims 2nd place, latest interview with their UK chief in
> OXM confirms that.
The GameCube's in second place, and that's a fact. Recent worldwide figures from statistical analysts Reuters show that Nintendo have sold 9.6 million units to Microsoft's 9.4 million Xboxes.
But I buy quite a few games just for their multiplayer, how long it takes to complete the main game is less of a factor if you just mainly want the multiplayer modes.
maddmun wrote:
> Let me put it like this:
>
> Games take 1 month to finish, 12 games bought per year.
> Games take 3 months to finish, 4 games bought per year.
>
Of course this is assuming the games are bought for the single player/co-operative main game modes.
I mainly buy my games for the multiplayer.
This is why I own Whacked/Smugglers Run but have yet to bother getting Zelda.
> Let me put it like this:
>
> Games take 1 month to finish, 12 games bought per year.
> Games take 3 months to finish, 4 games bought per year.
>
Of course this is assuming the games are bought for the single player/co-operative main game modes.
I mainly buy my games for the multiplayer.
This is why I own Whacked/Smugglers Run but have yet to bother getting Zelda.
J-42 wrote:
> maddmun wrote:
> They buy less longer games as they are still playing they're current
> long game, that's what I was trying to imply, whereas they still
> want
> a short game to play as they've just completed one.
>
> DO you understand now?
>
> Oh, i thought that it meant that they weren't buying long games,
> becasue they got bored or sommit.
Yes exactly. What the bloke was getting on at was not that you buy a long game, and you play it happily for 3 months and so don't buy anything else. The point he was making was that nearly every game released nowadays take some people AGES to complete. Thus they never reach the end of the game because it is too much like hard work and so the player can't be bothered to finish it. And when the player keeps getting to this state with game, they eventually start to be put off buying games, which reduces sales. This is why Nintendo want to make shorter games. To keep people satisfied and buying more new games.
Someone once told me a few years beack that games like Zelda OOT, were made relatively easy because the Japanese gaming massive like to complete games, rather than get stuck on long laborious games. They get a better sensation out of completing a game, rather than get stuck on it for months on end.
This is the point Nintendo are trying to address with todays games! Make them completable, without too much hassle, so that the gamer is kept pleased and ammused.
The downside to this though, will be that die-hard gaming fans might find some of these games too easy. I guess it all depends how Nintendo tackle the subject though. I think they need to bring back more puzzle type games. That are quick and fun to play. But supply hours of enjoyment. Kinda like Sega's Chu Chu Rocket.
We shall see...
:)
> maddmun wrote:
> They buy less longer games as they are still playing they're current
> long game, that's what I was trying to imply, whereas they still
> want
> a short game to play as they've just completed one.
>
> DO you understand now?
>
> Oh, i thought that it meant that they weren't buying long games,
> becasue they got bored or sommit.
Yes exactly. What the bloke was getting on at was not that you buy a long game, and you play it happily for 3 months and so don't buy anything else. The point he was making was that nearly every game released nowadays take some people AGES to complete. Thus they never reach the end of the game because it is too much like hard work and so the player can't be bothered to finish it. And when the player keeps getting to this state with game, they eventually start to be put off buying games, which reduces sales. This is why Nintendo want to make shorter games. To keep people satisfied and buying more new games.
Someone once told me a few years beack that games like Zelda OOT, were made relatively easy because the Japanese gaming massive like to complete games, rather than get stuck on long laborious games. They get a better sensation out of completing a game, rather than get stuck on it for months on end.
This is the point Nintendo are trying to address with todays games! Make them completable, without too much hassle, so that the gamer is kept pleased and ammused.
The downside to this though, will be that die-hard gaming fans might find some of these games too easy. I guess it all depends how Nintendo tackle the subject though. I think they need to bring back more puzzle type games. That are quick and fun to play. But supply hours of enjoyment. Kinda like Sega's Chu Chu Rocket.
We shall see...
:)
maddmun wrote:
> They buy less longer games as they are still playing they're current
> long game, that's what I was trying to imply, whereas they still want
> a short game to play as they've just completed one.
>
> DO you understand now?
Oh, i thought that it meant that they weren't buying long games, becasue they got bored or sommit.
> They buy less longer games as they are still playing they're current
> long game, that's what I was trying to imply, whereas they still want
> a short game to play as they've just completed one.
>
> DO you understand now?
Oh, i thought that it meant that they weren't buying long games, becasue they got bored or sommit.
Cooky wrote:
> I hate the fact long and short games cost the same price.
>
> Less time is spent on a short game, and they say games are priced so
> high because they last longer than say a one and a half hour long
> film!
>
> That is just cod-b.....ks! And really annoys me about the game
> industry!
>
> And the reason why I hardly ever buy a game over £15 anymore!
>
> :(
I totally agree, which is one of the reasons Morrowind s worth all the money.
> I hate the fact long and short games cost the same price.
>
> Less time is spent on a short game, and they say games are priced so
> high because they last longer than say a one and a half hour long
> film!
>
> That is just cod-b.....ks! And really annoys me about the game
> industry!
>
> And the reason why I hardly ever buy a game over £15 anymore!
>
> :(
I totally agree, which is one of the reasons Morrowind s worth all the money.
They buy less longer games as they are still playing they're current long game, that's what I was trying to imply, whereas they still want a short game to play as they've just completed one.
DO you understand now?
DO you understand now?
Page: