The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
taken from IGN.COM
EU Fines Nintendo
According to Reuters, the EU are fining Nintendo and their European distributors next week for breaking antitrust regulations with it's sales practices in the mid-90's. They were accused in 2000 of limiting cross-border flow of their products to raise wholesale prices as retailers could only order from the distributors for their country and couldn't import cheaper goods.
Unsurprisingly this is bad for Nintendo's stock prices. This coupled with them reducing their GameCube sales forecasts has made their stock prices drop 19% in the last month.
EU Fines Nintendo
According to Reuters, the EU are fining Nintendo and their European distributors next week for breaking antitrust regulations with it's sales practices in the mid-90's. They were accused in 2000 of limiting cross-border flow of their products to raise wholesale prices as retailers could only order from the distributors for their country and couldn't import cheaper goods.
Unsurprisingly this is bad for Nintendo's stock prices. This coupled with them reducing their GameCube sales forecasts has made their stock prices drop 19% in the last month.
Page:
Out of interest Gamezfreak, how on earth have you managed to class Resident Evil as a FPS?
gamezfreak wrote:
> Resident Evil is great fun, blowing up zombies and stuff but it has no
> scare factor, i just class it just a first person shooter with a few
> puzzles and missions to do.
Hmm.. Resident Evil really does take getting into, like all Survival Horror games. Give it a good play, by yourself, and you'll see it's extremely atmospheric and terrifying. Trust me!
> Resident Evil is great fun, blowing up zombies and stuff but it has no
> scare factor, i just class it just a first person shooter with a few
> puzzles and missions to do.
Hmm.. Resident Evil really does take getting into, like all Survival Horror games. Give it a good play, by yourself, and you'll see it's extremely atmospheric and terrifying. Trust me!
Whitestripes wrote:
> Gamezfreak/garbe/Maverick
>
> You do realise that is they swapped consoles the argument would be the
> other way round?
The PS2 was my first next-gen console, and I feel it has the best games at the moment. When comparing the PS2's survival horror - Silent Hill - to the GameCube's - Resident Evil -, however, I feel that Resident Evil is the greater game. Purely because Silent Hill didn't take the genre as far as it could have done. It's by no means a bad game, but certainly not 'great' like Resident Evil, Eternal Darkness and Devil May Cry.
> Gamezfreak/garbe/Maverick
>
> You do realise that is they swapped consoles the argument would be the
> other way round?
The PS2 was my first next-gen console, and I feel it has the best games at the moment. When comparing the PS2's survival horror - Silent Hill - to the GameCube's - Resident Evil -, however, I feel that Resident Evil is the greater game. Purely because Silent Hill didn't take the genre as far as it could have done. It's by no means a bad game, but certainly not 'great' like Resident Evil, Eternal Darkness and Devil May Cry.
Resident Evil is great fun, blowing up zombies and stuff but it has no scare factor, i just class it just a first person shooter with a few puzzles and missions to do.
Silent Hill 2, now thats scary! Its atmospheric. Im also looking forward to "Fatal Frame"
Silent Hill 2, now thats scary! Its atmospheric. Im also looking forward to "Fatal Frame"
Gamezfreak/garbe/Maverick
You do realise that is they swapped consoles the argument would be the other way round?
garbe and gamefreak would be saying they prefer Resi, and maverick would be claiming Silent Hill was a step forward from Resi.
Which it isn't. They are in fact, totally different games.
You do realise that is they swapped consoles the argument would be the other way round?
garbe and gamefreak would be saying they prefer Resi, and maverick would be claiming Silent Hill was a step forward from Resi.
Which it isn't. They are in fact, totally different games.
Silent85 wrote:
> too be honest dringo I feel if rare had just released a AAA game on gc
> instead of jumping ship you would be kissing ones rectoral area.
What like Starfox Adventures?
> too be honest dringo I feel if rare had just released a AAA game on gc
> instead of jumping ship you would be kissing ones rectoral area.
What like Starfox Adventures?
Savatt78 wrote:
> Is it me or is there something funny in the way that Silicon Knights
> and Retro are supposedly just as classy as Rare - and yet they hardly
> got a mention until Rare jumped ship. ;-))
Do you want to know why?
Firstly, play Eternal Darkness all the way through. Thats Silicon Knights sorted.
Now read this:
http://cube.ign.com/articles/376/376769p1.html
Sounds easily better than anything Rare have ever done, or are doing now. One of those guys is a PS2 fanboy practically claiming it's one of the best games ever!
> Is it me or is there something funny in the way that Silicon Knights
> and Retro are supposedly just as classy as Rare - and yet they hardly
> got a mention until Rare jumped ship. ;-))
Do you want to know why?
Firstly, play Eternal Darkness all the way through. Thats Silicon Knights sorted.
Now read this:
http://cube.ign.com/articles/376/376769p1.html
Sounds easily better than anything Rare have ever done, or are doing now. One of those guys is a PS2 fanboy practically claiming it's one of the best games ever!
Dringo wrote:
> Nintendo kicked Rare out because they were losing too much of
> Nintendo's money, Rare had made millions each time they release a game
> BUT they took so long and required such advanced tools that at the end
> of the N64's life in total Rare made a loss...
A few over exadurations there... :-)
Rare did make huge profits - during 2000, Rare accounted for 10% of Nintendo's profits (and that was in the middle of the Pokémon craze too, so Nintendo's own revenue wasn't exactly low!), but inconsistant because releases weren't so common.
That's why the profits gained from Rare have been so low recently.
So Nintendo decided not to spend a fortune buying them out and weren't too fussed about letting MS have them, especially for such a large price.
Dringo, you have gone SO anti-Rare since that sell-out!
> Nintendo kicked Rare out because they were losing too much of
> Nintendo's money, Rare had made millions each time they release a game
> BUT they took so long and required such advanced tools that at the end
> of the N64's life in total Rare made a loss...
A few over exadurations there... :-)
Rare did make huge profits - during 2000, Rare accounted for 10% of Nintendo's profits (and that was in the middle of the Pokémon craze too, so Nintendo's own revenue wasn't exactly low!), but inconsistant because releases weren't so common.
That's why the profits gained from Rare have been so low recently.
So Nintendo decided not to spend a fortune buying them out and weren't too fussed about letting MS have them, especially for such a large price.
Dringo, you have gone SO anti-Rare since that sell-out!
Maverick42 wrote:
> And who'd heard of Rare until Goldeneye?
ME! Donkey Kong Country was CLASS!
> And who'd heard of Rare until Goldeneye?
ME! Donkey Kong Country was CLASS!
Page: