Viewing Thread:
"Ha ha ha RARE ha ha ha"

I am not laughing at Rare, Rare were my third favourite company and my first favourite company kicked 'em out to you guys. Oh no I'm laughing at the fact that Microsoft expect Rare to release 5 games in 2 years....

Trust me it won't happen.

Well I don't have time for a proper reply now, but I can tell you one thing.

Although Nintendo haven't announced a huge online network, it doens't mean online games won't happen.

Nintendo are making a GC Pokemon game, which is going online, and it will connect up with the GBA as well. and if Pokemon is going online, theres a good chance of Mario KArt and similar games following suit.

I expect something like Dreamarena.

As for console innovation, there isn't much going around anyway is there? A hard-drive might be new on a console, but they've been around for years on PCs, and they have games too. So all these 'new' types of games have been going for years already.

As for Nintendo, two of the most popular ideas have come from them.

Firstly the rumble pak, which was copied in a matter of months by Sony, and now comes as standard from everyone.

And although they weren't the first, the analouge stick. Sony entered the world of 3D gaming with...a D-pad. It was pathetic, and if you ask me, typical of their attitude.

Then theres the GBA connectivity, it doesn't sound much, but actually future games are really getting much more out of this than I ever expected.

Whitestripes wrote:
> Oh, and another thing. Maybe just nobody respects Microsoft. After
> all, if you don't make games (which they don't really) what the hell
> are you doing in the games industry? Oh thats right, buying it out
> because you want even more money. Christ, if I had Bill gates money
> I'd give 3/4 of it to charity and retire! I don't think I could spend
> a billion if I tried!
>
> What do Microsoft themselves make? Microsft Flight Simulator 97
> anyone? Even their names are about as un-original as you can get.

Well they can't be doing that bad cause I'm certainly enjoying the console they've put out. What Microsoft have done is provided the hardware so that developers both well known and small, can easily develop some great games - kind of like Sony with the playstation.

I don't remember Sony being well known for their games, but they didn't have too much trouble trampling over Nintendo did they. What Microsoft have over Sony, besides the obvious bank account, is experience in things such as online gaming which has helped to create X-Box Live for a start. As far as moving options in gaming forward goes, at least Microsoft and Sony are attempting it. If Nintendo were the only company, it would be a case of being force fed Mario game after Mario game while being limited to a maximum of 4 players on multiplayer.

Sega went down which was sad as they attempted to actually innovate when it came to the hardware and direction of gaming. What do Nintendo do as far as this area is concerned ? Oh ! A new controller ! Excuse me while I go mess my pants with excitement.
Nintendo have an online capability, if you can really call it that. But really they're just sitting on the fence while the others do it first.
The software Nintendo put out is all well and good - if you're into their games. Personally, as much as I love games and new ideas, my idea of fun isn't beating up some blob with a bunch of flowers and as for the likes of Mario and Zelda, although they're trying a couple of new ideas, they are essentially the same thing.

Software is important, but to advance in software, you need the ideas in hardware too at times to help bring new ideas. Online gaming offers players the chance to take part in massive multiplayer games at any time and with the X-Box in particular having the headset supported in all online titles, it doesn't have to be a dead, lifeless affair.
The X-Box's hard drive has helped to create ideas such as Blinx and Project Ego which are set to be awesome titles.
Of course not all games will use these options, but they are there to be used and who knows what developers will be able to come up with thanks to some companies actually focusing attention on the console itself.
At the end of the day, the GC might as well be an updated N64, because if you take away the flashier graphics, what does it do that the N64 didn't ?
Although it has an adapter for online play, its not as though Nintendo are actually set on using it. So far, unless something very recent has been announced, the only game supporting the GC's online capability is Phantasy Star Online by Sega, who were actually the ones who persuaded Nintendo to put the capability in in the first place.

Microsoft might not be wonderful when it comes to Windows, but so far I don't see anything wrong with the the X-Box. When Microsoft have developers shoving out crap and give me a console that constantly crashes and has problems, I'll look elsewhere. But right now, I'm happy with the console and Microsoft are providing me with games I enjoy, great future releases to look forward to and great prospect for new developments in gaming, wether its online gaming or new ideas to use with the hard drive.

Whitestripes wrote:
> Getting all worked up are we? Well I'm so sorry I decided to prove you
> totally wrong.
>
> Your almost pulling a garbe here.
>
> No where in that post did I say Rare were bad, did I? I just corrected
> your view of how they moved from Nintendo to Microsoft. Everything
> there was fact and none of my own opinions were displayed.

Don't flatter yourself, I was arguing your post. Fact is, just because you haven't stamped your feet in that post doesn't mean you haven't done it elsewhere with the other Ninties.

Plus this 7.5% you came up with - wasn't it 9.5% at some point ? Or did you decide that 7.5% looked better for your post ?
Considering at the time Rare were making that amount for Nintendo was when the kids were all in a trance over Pokemon, I don't think thats too bad a percentage. Combine that with Nintendo's heavy reliance on the Gameboy and other developers as well.

If Nintendo wanted to give Rare the golden sod off hand shake, thats Nintendo's fault, not Microsoft's. Microsoft saw that a high quality developer was up for sale and they took the chance of buying them. If Capcom and Sega decide they want to develop for one console or if Capcom decide to put a for sale sign up, then thats upto them.
Its called business - if Microsoft have the money to fund excellent developers that want to work on the X-Box, then great.
Microsoft aren't forcing any developers to work on X-Box - companies such as EA, Konami and THQ make tons of money and don't need to make such a commitment for a start.
But if a company is struggling or wants to commit to one platform, then its common sense to try to get them on your console.
I'm pretty sure that if Nintendo went out buying a bunch of developers tomorrow there would be sod all moaning about it from your point of view.

Oh, and another thing. Maybe just nobody respects Microsoft. After all, if you don't make games (which they don't really) what the hell are you doing in the games industry? Oh thats right, buying it out because you want even more money. Christ, if I had Bill gates money I'd give 3/4 of it to charity and retire! I don't think I could spend a billion if I tried!

What do Microsoft themselves make? Microsft Flight Simulator 97 anyone? Even their names are about as un-original as you can get.

Getting all worked up are we? Well I'm so sorry I decided to prove you totally wrong.

Your almost pulling a garbe here.

No where in that post did I say Rare were bad, did I? I just corrected your view of how they moved from Nintendo to Microsoft. Everything there was fact and none of my own opinions were displayed.

About Halo, what I meant was it's the only game to recieve world wide recognition. Even the most casual of gamers will have heard of it, and everyone knows Rare which is why it was such a vital purchase for Microsoft. Where as the GAmecube has a few widely known characters/games. Like Mario (who was proved more recognisable than Mickey Mouse), Zelda, Sonic etc.

You should know the reason why most people hate Microsoft for buying out developers. How many years have people been making jokes at Microsoft? About Windows and how it never works probably, the blue screen of death etc. And of course, they charge £200+ for what is largely the same operating system, different design and a few fancy features. They get rid of the bugs, and just add a whole load of new ones.

Although personally I don't like the companies they target. I don't mind about Rare, sure they made decent games, but they don't release many often, so if they release one that isn't to your taste, you have to wait ages for the next one. The last Rare game I bought was Goldeneye.

But it seems to me they want to buy large, established developers and make them all first parties, leaving the other consoles to rely almost purely on exclusives, as they multi-format companies have all been bought up.

Where as Nintendo and Sony usually buy small developers, and grow them to be big successes. Without having to research it, how many previous games from Retro Studios can you name before Metroid Prime?

Microsoft are going by the usual ideals, buy everything out so no one can compete, and frankly, people don't tend to like that sort of thing. Realisticly, by 2005 Microsoft could have actually bought out all the multi-format developers that produce average+ games, thus actually forcing everyone to buy their consoles to get any amount of decent games. And they'll run it like the Pc industry, badly.

That's becuase they started AFTER the contract ended, whereas with Capcom their Contract still and will exist with Nintendo until they finish all 6 Res Evil games on the GC. Then Money humgry Bill Gates can get his selfish mits on them.

Maverick42 wrote:
> Rare were a second party developer, and we were given quite a large
> notice of Rare's situation around mid-2001 when Nintendo refused to
> buy them out (I THINK it was mid-2001).

That being the case, why were we getting it in the ear about how you lot had Rare. Not only that, but the early rumours were laughed at and rubbished.

Just Halo ? Think thats pretty arguable. That'd be like me saying GC only has Resident Evil. I take it Sega's titles are below par and DOA3 is no match for Bloody Roar on the GC ?
Dunno about you, but for me its not just 1st party titles that should make a console worthwhile - its the games available as a whole.
Microsoft aren't known for their history in making games, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed into the industry.
Microsoft make up for this by giving the developers a console they can create excellent games on. Microsoft actually went to developers and asked them what they'd like the console to do.
Nintendo wanted to ditch Rare then thats their loss - don't see how Ninty's can stamp their feet and hate Rare when its Nintendo they should be having a go at for it.

Rare are now working with the X-Box and it looks like Kameo is already coming along nicely. Microsoft bought Rare because they will bring something different to the X-Box and help the console appeal to a wider audience. Nintendo did a similar thing by grabbing the Resident Evil series - because they want to shift more consoles.
Another thing that really gets me with you lot is that if Microsoft buy a company such as Rare (and possibly others such as Capcom in the future), they are automatically labelled as stinking pigs ruining the games industry. If on the other hand Nintendo do it, oh christ how things change !

If news came through that Nintendo have just bought Sega or Capcom, the Ninties would be jumping for joy and praising it as a superb move. What you lot don't like is that Microsoft have the bigger wallet and have successfully used it.
Its a sad case of jealousy basically because Ninties wish Nintendo could have the bank account that Microsoft has access to.
The reaction over Rare from Ninties alone shows how good a move it was.

Savatt78 wrote:
> And Rare were a first party developer and a big part of Nintendo,
> they'd never leave ! Would they ? ;-)

Rare were a second party developer, and we were given quite a large notice of Rare's situation around mid-2001 when Nintendo refused to buy them out (I THINK it was mid-2001).

Savatt78 wrote:

> And Rare were a first party developer and a big part of Nintendo,
> they'd never leave ! Would they ? ;-)

Thats where you are totally, totally wrong.

First off, Rare were second party, Nintendo did not own them.

Secondly, they actually had a contract with Nintendo, which expired a while ago (at least a year). It was not renewed, but Nintendo owning 49% of shares made them a 2nd party still.

Thirdly, with their contract up, Rare were looking for something permanent, they asked Nintendo if they would buy them out. Nintendo looked at the finacial status, obviously they put money into Rare so it's important they get it back. In 2000 Rare accounted for 7.5% of sales, and in 2001 only 1.5%. So Nintendo said no.

Microsoft were despertly in need of a big name to try and sell some more units, only having Halo at the time. They went into negotiations, and with the prospect of earning £2.5 million for selling a company that has, essentially, done nothing the past two years, they agreed.