|
|
Posted by Okilee Dokilee on 09/19/05 17:09
> Eh, this is the kind of armchair CEO stuff that kills me.
> What care you if Nintendo choose to only release certain types of games? I
> mean do you bemoan Mothercare for not properly targetting ten-year-olds?
Or
> are you unhappy with ASDA because it's not as big as TESCOS? Does it
> _really_ bother you that your television is maybe not part of the biggest
> company on earth?
Well it doesn't bother me at all to be honest, but I wouldn't like to see
Nintendo going the same way as Sega did because of losing the console war.
> Nintendo is not a publicly-owned company (as far as I know) and as such,
> everything they make in profit goes into their own coffers. If they make
> $1million per year (and they make waay more than that) they are in profit
> and it can suffice. They are not answerable to anyone for what they do or
> how they do it.
> The other two main console companies can succeed or fail as much on how
loud
> they shout than they can with their games.
Good for them.
> Also, the other two console companies have larger divisions that can
support
> their gaming hardware and be used to nudge out any 'intereference'.
Between
> them, they could dominate the airwaves by releasing a turd with a stick in
> it and calling it a shit simulator.
> It doesn't matter to them what Nintendo do really as they can release the
> same crap all the time and shout louder than ever and nobody will hear
about
> an itty bitty Japanese company (which is not so itty bitty by the way).
>
> But Nintendo can easily make a _lot_ of money out of the large numbers of
> people who are simply not interested in "sameagainthankyoumaam".
>
> I won't be buying the Revolution if the games do not interest me, but so
far
> the controller certainly takes my interest.
Well I hope that Nintendo do really come up with something revolutionary,
pardon the pun. But I do think that they'll struggle against the bigger two
companies.
> ...and if all games in the future had graphics that "look like what you
> would see in the real World" then it'd be sad indeed. Does that mean that
> all movies should also look like what you would see in the real world?
> How come?
Well all movies do look pretty much like what you would see in the real
world don't they? (with the exception of Sin City & some cartoons etc).
Just that they have things occurring in the movie that you wouldn't likely
see happening in the real World on a regular basis.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|