The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Last week the XBox overtook the Cube in sales in GB. Now there are (only) 3000 more XBoxes around than Cubes. This is due to the excellent offer the XBox has (2 games for free).
Nintendo have to cut prices and/0r add a free killer game, like they did with the Mario/Goldeneye N64s.
They have to do it before Christmas, or else they'll take a pounding.
Nintendo have to cut prices and/0r add a free killer game, like they did with the Mario/Goldeneye N64s.
They have to do it before Christmas, or else they'll take a pounding.
Page:
the notables have spoken
Cyclone. Nintendo won't take a pounding. Basically because they are making money on the consoles they sell unlike Microsoft who will now NEVER make any profit on the XBox.
This pricedrop deal of the Xbox's was DESPERATION tictags (tactics).
Dreamcast did it, did really well, then said byebye.
This pricedrop deal of the Xbox's was DESPERATION tictags (tactics).
Dreamcast did it, did really well, then said byebye.
To add to my last reply:
Sony:
Gave small developers funds to develop games. Paid for exclusive games. Gave away dev kits, with excellent support. Offered free code libraries. Used CD's as an easy development platform. Asked for low royalties. Bought a handful of small companies.
Sega:
Produced a console so hard to develop for that only they and Capcom bothered. Not only that, but Sega hogged almost all the dev kits themselves.
Nintendo:
Didn't give any release dates, and when they did they were delayed. Didn't allow any third parties to publish release games. Didn't give away any development kits until near the console's release. Asked for MASSIVE royalties for having the privilidge of developing on a Nintendo console. Offered no software support.
So, which company did developers flock to?
Nowadays, MS actually have really strong competition so HAVE to spend a load of money. In a market where Sega fails, I think it's fairly obvious?
Sony:
Gave small developers funds to develop games. Paid for exclusive games. Gave away dev kits, with excellent support. Offered free code libraries. Used CD's as an easy development platform. Asked for low royalties. Bought a handful of small companies.
Sega:
Produced a console so hard to develop for that only they and Capcom bothered. Not only that, but Sega hogged almost all the dev kits themselves.
Nintendo:
Didn't give any release dates, and when they did they were delayed. Didn't allow any third parties to publish release games. Didn't give away any development kits until near the console's release. Asked for MASSIVE royalties for having the privilidge of developing on a Nintendo console. Offered no software support.
So, which company did developers flock to?
Nowadays, MS actually have really strong competition so HAVE to spend a load of money. In a market where Sega fails, I think it's fairly obvious?
Whitestripes wrote:
> Well to be honest I don't remember seeing Sony splash millions about
> on buying out developers and advertising.
>
> They sponsered some football matches, and that was about it. Sony
> acheived their success with far, far less expenditure than Microsoft
> will.
Sony didn't need too!
When the PS1 was being developed, Sony gave dev kits out for free, gave developers excellent support, and asked for little game royalties.
Meanwhile Nintendo REFUSED to give away any dev kits to third parties until after launch in most cases, asked for massive royalties, and kept the cart format.
Hence Square, Namco and the rest jumped ship because there was no better alternative!
> Well to be honest I don't remember seeing Sony splash millions about
> on buying out developers and advertising.
>
> They sponsered some football matches, and that was about it. Sony
> acheived their success with far, far less expenditure than Microsoft
> will.
Sony didn't need too!
When the PS1 was being developed, Sony gave dev kits out for free, gave developers excellent support, and asked for little game royalties.
Meanwhile Nintendo REFUSED to give away any dev kits to third parties until after launch in most cases, asked for massive royalties, and kept the cart format.
Hence Square, Namco and the rest jumped ship because there was no better alternative!
Well to be honest I don't remember seeing Sony splash millions about on buying out developers and advertising.
They sponsered some football matches, and that was about it. Sony acheived their success with far, far less expenditure than Microsoft will.
They sponsered some football matches, and that was about it. Sony acheived their success with far, far less expenditure than Microsoft will.
People in here don't really seem to know how console sales work. The point is that you MUST lose money on consoles to make money. Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft all sell their consoles at a loss in order to make the entry price into their brand lower. They then make the money back on the game publishing. It has been like this for years, and the same thing is done in many other industries - HP give away printers for nothing, but make money on the ink.
Microsoft, however, are in a different situation from Sony or Nintendo. Being new to the market, they have to create a customer base from scratch. They have to steal potential customers from more established brands.
So, to do this, they spend billions advertising, buying quality developers and getting exclusive contracts. When a well known company like Sega fail to get a console off the grounds you can see how far MS really have to go.
All this means that, even with massive software sales, Microsoft will always make a net loss on the Xbox. However, the point of the console is not to make money, but to create a fanbase and launchpad for Microsoft's future consoles. They are doing almost everything right - all that remains is for them to release the next console with even more developer support.
You see, releasing a console is a catch 22. Developers won't make games because there is no established market, players won't buy it because there are no games. So, for MS to have brought some great games to the console and made sales this high (even though they lag behind ninty and Sony, they've started from ground zero), they must be doing something very well.
Sonic
Microsoft, however, are in a different situation from Sony or Nintendo. Being new to the market, they have to create a customer base from scratch. They have to steal potential customers from more established brands.
So, to do this, they spend billions advertising, buying quality developers and getting exclusive contracts. When a well known company like Sega fail to get a console off the grounds you can see how far MS really have to go.
All this means that, even with massive software sales, Microsoft will always make a net loss on the Xbox. However, the point of the console is not to make money, but to create a fanbase and launchpad for Microsoft's future consoles. They are doing almost everything right - all that remains is for them to release the next console with even more developer support.
You see, releasing a console is a catch 22. Developers won't make games because there is no established market, players won't buy it because there are no games. So, for MS to have brought some great games to the console and made sales this high (even though they lag behind ninty and Sony, they've started from ground zero), they must be doing something very well.
Sonic
If you look at the Gamecube it is good for all ages, what PS2 & X-Box games, that are any good, are for the under 13's?
But the gamecube is "more cheap" as you would probably put it.
Whitestripes wrote:
> What, more expensive than a PS2, which costs more?
Yes, indeed it is. By expense, I mean value for money. Sure, it's the cheapest console - but in my mind, the most expensive. To me, the PS2 and GameCube have so much more to offer, even though their not as cheap, so the X-Box is more expensive.
> What, more expensive than a PS2, which costs more?
Yes, indeed it is. By expense, I mean value for money. Sure, it's the cheapest console - but in my mind, the most expensive. To me, the PS2 and GameCube have so much more to offer, even though their not as cheap, so the X-Box is more expensive.
Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks, as Gary Coleman loves to whine.
Page: