Topic: Hoping For the Fall of Nintendo Consoles

[Pale]

I don't mind bumping old topics if you add something... but you said.. "I don't like your idea." =P

[jasonditz]

I don't think Sega can reasonably release a new system yet, even though they could probably afford it. Their loyal fanbase (myself included) feels pretty betrayed by the fact that they killed off their last system a couple years in, so a lot of us would be awfully leary of being an early adopter again lest they do the same damned thing. Memories are short, but they're not that short... Sega might be able to release something a couple years into this generation or something, but IMO it's still just plain too soon.

There are a lot of reasons to not like the idea of going third party for Nintendo:

1) They make a lot of money off the present situation, why change
2) They design their hardware with their games in mind... 3rd parties are at the mercy of hardware designers.
3) You either have to be platform agnostic like Sega (and split your fanbase just like Sega did this generation), or pick a single system to develop for. Then if that system flops, you're totally marginalized
4) 3rd parties have to pay licensing fees. Nintendo makes almost exclusively million sellers, so that's a lot of money to hand to another hardware maker for no good reason.  

[Dirk Temporo]

Quote
Originally posted by: SmellySocks
Hey cheif,
1.)  I wasn't talking about software prices.  I was talking about hardware prices.  Who has the money spend $200-$300 for 3 systems.

Solution? DON'T BUY ALL THREE SYSTEMS.

[Ceric]

Time to put in my 2 cents.

Nintendo invests a lot of money into hardware R&D for company that just makes games.  They could easily just pick-up parts.  Methinks Nintendo is making a good chunk of change on there research that has nothing to with game systems.

The original argument in this thread is a little flawwed because by his logic it should have been the other way around.  Everyone else should become third party because Nintendo developed the strongest games.  *shrug*  Sony is not very first party at all in my mind.  In fact I think that MS was more like Nintendo regarding game realises then Sony BEFORE the XBox.  They've made some pretty good Computer games the run on Windows that is there platform.

Also part of the reason Sega isn't making as good of games for consoles as the use to is because there "parent" company has straight out told them that they should focus on Arcades.

Another note is that Nintendo may have a higher licensing fee but that doesn't equate to more for them.  When Nintendo goes to a hardware manafacture to make something for them they try to get it at as close to the manafacturing cost as possible if not the manafacturing cost.  How do you say they do that.  It's simple.  Nintendo will pay the cost of manafactuing the peice.  So at the point that hardware company is breaking even, ok.  Then Nintendo gives you a certian percentage of the license fee.  So now the Hardware company has a vested interest in every part of your console doing well because they make a little bit of money for every game you sell, governments do the same thing with saving bonds and like.  Why would Nintendo do it like this?  No fix cost.  If Nintendo is doing badly they don't owe as much to the hardware company.  If Nintendo is doing well they can afford to pay the extra to the hardware company and that makes that company happy.  It also allows for price drops later on.  Nintendo can go, "You know that it's now much cheaper for you to manafacture these parts and I've paid you X more than you would have made with a fix cost. I need a price break."  They'll say yes because they now what a sweet deal they already have.

When the 360 was released they had an article on all that.  MS has learned to adopt a model more like Nintendo.  To the point that MS owns the rights for almost every part of the 360 so if say IBM makes them mad they can have someone else produce the chips.  I'm sure that cost them more up front but in the long run for this sort of thing it's better.

I could keep going but I'm going to stop there.  

[jasonditz]

I honestly don't know how Sony's sustained their business model as long as they have. They have virtually no first party development (nothing meaningful anyhow), they sell their hardware at a significant loss... basically all their profits come from third party development, and that development is dependent on them having a huge market share, and that market share is dependent on them getting blockbuster third party exclusives. It's a very tenuous position to be in.

You look at what happens to their systems every time there is a lag in blockbusters. The PS1 only really got going because of Battle Arena Toshinden, and was starting to teeter after that until MGS came along. The PS2 got its early launch hype, but before GTA3 came along it was really starting to tread water, to the point where there was talk on Sony corporate pulling the plug on the game division.

I mean, look at the PSP, it's dealing with the same situation: a bunch of mediocre or worse titles, the early hype (at least stateside) has died down and most of the interest is coming from its position as a (mediocre) media player. I haven't seen data on it in months, but last I saw the tie-in ratio was abysmal for the PSP, which leaves me wondering if they're even breaking even on the whole thing. To me it's just trying to survive until some big title comes along and justifies its existance.

[Ceric]

The most recent data I've seen on the PSP states that 96% of PSP's are owned by males.  Ironically enough this was straight from Sony who then stated that it was going to try to even that out some.  Besides that I know that it's selling sort of but you're right I haven't seen those promised "I'm thoroughly crushing you figures" but, to be fair I haven't seen any recent statistics saying how overall gameconsole sales are doing for each company.

[The Omen]

Quote
Here's the point I was trying to make: why would you want to have to purchase three different gaming systems to satisfy all your wants and needs.

Honestly? I don't buy all three systems, nor do I buy 2.  I am quite content with Nintendo and perhaps some of the bigger releases (like Knights of the Old Republic) on PC.

[King of Twitch]

Hellooo 2003. Nintendo must never go third party... For A, they'd lose their dignity in admitting defeat by Sony, and B, for the future of mankind, they must not give Microsoft a single dime of contribution in their quest for the domination of the living room; not to mention C, 20 years of videogame progress would very quickly be flushed down the toilet, '84-style.

People must've been depressed back in April 2003, even before the E3 Pac-Man debacle, though I notice no one replied with "oh, just go play your GBA."

[Ceric]

You know posted somewhere else is something a lot like what you said MJRx9000.  More elaborate though.  I just can't remember where...

[blackfootsteps]

I found it funny that the original poster used the words 'Fable' and 'greatest games ever made' in the same paragraph. Was Fable even out in 2003?

[animecyberrat]

Ok I am only going to make a couple rebuttals cuz there’s lots of uninformed people on here. Sega is MORE Profitable since going 3rd party then they were in their glory days.
SECOND Sega has a SH!& load of great games that a lot of people on here don’t know about simply cuz they aren’t on GC. Spartan, Virtua Fighter 5, House of the Dead 3, Sega GT online, Panzer Dragoon Orta, Condemned, Sonic Adventure, Super Monkey Ball, Sonic Riders, Sonic Rush, etc. Sega has just as many games going now as they ever have and they STILL have a ton of great games that are only overlooked because they aren’t on GC.

Sega going 3rd party was a good decision. Sega also has their hands in many hardware areas right now also, they have the Plug N Play Genesis and there’s a DVD player coming out that has Master System games built in. Sega is making a major come back and could easily release a brand new system if they chose, but they are too deeply involved in Ps3 and Rev and 360 stuff to do that right now.

Nintendo is far more profitable as a hardware maker than Sony so there is no need for them to abandon their hardware. Also Nintendo has Pokemon and GBA/DS not to mention all their million selling games to eat any losses they may or may not incur due to GC sales.

[ThePerm]

some of those games were made before Sega was bought by Sammy. Some of them suck in my opinion. Others are made by new american subsidiaries that arent even REAL Sega. I doubt Sega is making more money than they did in the Genesis era. They probably are only doing marginally better than they did in the Dreamcast better, but they are certainly doing bettter than they were when they TRIED to compete with EA on the sports front.

as a Sega fan myself, i really don't like how the company is going right now. The only thing that does look good right now is Condemned, but I would really like to see them bring up their Sonic Team and Am stuff up a notch. I'm not saying Sega isn't doing bad as far as profit goes, but I beleive in the Dreamcast Era they were making some great games.

Virtua Fighter 3, Typing of the Dead, Shenmue 1 & 2, Seaman, Space Channel 5, Phantasy Star Online.

as far as Sonic Team goes, i never liked the Sonic Adventure series. I was spoiled by Nights which to me had better gameplay. Especially Christmas Nights where I got to play as Sonic, and it was fun.

[RiskyChris]

The first sonic adventure was the greatest platformer experience I've had since Mario 64.

[ThePerm]

yet to me it was meh. It could have been alot better, it had alot to live up to, it doesnt capture sonic in my eyes..also I hate several things about it. The world of Nights..the 3d parts...they seemed so much more living, i don't like the character redesigns, you play as too many characters...the game should focus more on sonic, the music was a horid brand of j-pop.

there are quite a few games i could see being way better if only another take was put on it, it seems as though Sonic is trying to be too cool and tryign to appeal to non sonic fans, but really what i would prefer is Sonic to just be Sonic

http://www.sonic-cult.org/dispart.php?catid=8&gameid=2&subid=1&artid=1

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

And the majority Sega games that aren't on GC (and quite a few that are on GC), despite being good, fail to sell.  So much for rebuilding a fanbase after splitting it up.

Sonic, Virtua Fighter, and Super Monkey Ball seem to be their only success stories in the recent generation.

[KnowsNothing]

Sega made F-Zero GX this generation so they're cool.

[animecyberrat]

It is sad for me espewcialy as  major Sega fanatic, to see their quality sinking, but I still find many great games they have made that get overlooked. And Condemned is the ONLY reason why I might be getting a 360 when I have the money. Well I dont knwo that new Phatasy Star  Universe is looking good too I heard it was coming to Xbox also.  

[jasonditz]

Sonic Rush shows that Sega's still capable of making a hell of a game when they put their mind to it.  

[IceCold]

Quote
Originally posted by: jasonditz
Sonic Rush shows that Sega's still capable of making a hell of a game when they put their mind to it.

Hahahaha, I made the same mistake of believing that the Sonic Team could actually still make a great game after playing Sonic Rush. But then Bloodworth informed me that it was really created by DIMPS, not the Sonic Team.. I looked it up, and they also made the GBA Sonic games. It seems that "created by Sonic Team" is a lie.

How naive of me.  

[wandering]

Well. There's still Super Monkey Ball.

[jasonditz]

Quote
Originally posted by: IceCold

Quote
Originally posted by: jasonditz
Sonic Rush shows that Sega's still capable of making a hell of a game when they put their mind to it.

Hahahaha, I made the same mistake of believing that the Sonic Team could actually still make a great game after playing Sonic Rush. But then Bloodworth informed me that it was really created by DIMPS, not the Sonic Team.. I looked it up, and they also made the GBA Sonic games. It seems that "created by Sonic Team" is a lie.

How naive of me.

The DBZ Budokai guys?

[Ceric]

1.  I bought a Saturn just to play NiGHTs into Dreams but I still haven't purchased it to play yet.  I just got tired of reading how uber a game it was.  If it was so great why didn't they Make a new one?

2.  PSO Rocks.  I have it for the Gamecube.  It's the only game I can do the same thing over and over and not get bored.  If I could only find my disc.  It came up missing a while back.  That was over 100hrs. of gameplay.

3.  All the PSO's where released for the Cube and they aren't releasing Universe for the cube.  It's a crime I tell ya.

4.  The new arcade fighter coming out from them looks very promising.

[jasonditz]

NiGHTs was neat, but for my money Burning Rangers was the killer app for Saturn analog control. Both deserve sequels...

PSO was, IMO, much better for the Dreamcast... the idea of a monthly fee to play an online game that's really more Diablo than Everquest just doesn't make sense to me.

[IceCold]

Not sure if they made the DBZ games..

[jasonditz]

Anyhow, Sonic Team made Puyo Pop Fever, which was an excellent game.