Nintendo Defeats Sony, Apple is "Enemy of the Future"

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Stubee:
If Apple ever released a console you know it will cost 5 times as much as an xbox and do half as much.

I highly doubt Apple has ideas to entering the console market. Apple has never really been a big endorser of gaming for its pc systems. Evidence being that the Macintosh is always the second in line for game releases.

Aeshi:
Ignoring the horde of mindless Apple-haters who bash a company whose products they never use because they think it makes them cool for a second:

What
the
Hell?

Nintendo is a gaming company.Apple is an electronics company,why would they be any threat to them?

Also if Apple made a console,and said console was like their computers and OS then it would do everything a xbox 360 can except.But the iBox 360 (as it shall now be known) would:

a)It would actually work (instead of crashing because you didn't dunk it in liquid nitrogen in the last 10 seconds)

b)Would run PS3 games on reduced graphics.

c)Add an extra button that can be bound to whatever you want

d)Would load up things faster.

e)Cost about 50% more

f)Is nearly as tough as a Nintendo console.

g)Would come with some free tools.

Of course all the anti-Apple zealots will still hate it anyway,despite never actually trying it

What on earth are you talking about...

Alar:

Aura Guardian:

dradiscontact:
With all due respect to Nintendo here, Sony isn't their "enemy" anymore because Nintendo, with the exception of a few titles sprinkled here and there, doesn't do hardcore games anymore. The Wii is marketed for casual gamers and children. So in other words, Nintendo beat their competitor by removing itself from the competition. Or something like that...

What's a hardcore game?

I think a 'hardcore game' or 'hardcore gamer' needs to have an agreed upon definition so that people can stop tip-toeing around the subject. If we're going to segregate gamers with special titles, then the least we can do is exposite on WHY they're different and WHY we're separating them.

I might define a casual gamer as someone who enjoys games that aren't necessarily enhanced by current generation graphics and that are fairly simple to play. Tetris is just as fun in 8bit as in SHINYTEXTURE3D mode. Tetris also has but one objective, and one way to achieve it: Keep your blocks from reaching the top for as long as possible, blow up blocks by completing a row. Hardcore gamers enjoy games that are made more immersive and easier to play as a result of current generation graphics, and require more complicated tactics. The simplest first person shooter nowadays would be incredibly less enjoyable to its audience if everything was redone in polygons and cell shading, and first person view without 3 dimensions is less than satisfying. In those first person shooters as well, one has to keep track of whatever dictates how close they are to dead during their bullet-spewing rages, where their target is, how best to kill the target, and how to avoid that bullet of Mjolnir it intends to shoot at you.

I could be wrong, though.

Stubee:
I see what you mean but in a way its Nintendos fault for targeting the younger audience who fall for all that gimmicky bells and whistles crap that apple cram into their products. I wouldnt of thought anyone that can call themselves a gamer would fall for that. We know there are fair better and cheaper products out there.

What on earth makes you think Nintendo is trying to target the fairly miniscule audience of self-identified "gamers"?

Kwil:

Stubee:
I see what you mean but in a way its Nintendos fault for targeting the younger audience who fall for all that gimmicky bells and whistles crap that apple cram into their products. I wouldnt of thought anyone that can call themselves a gamer would fall for that. We know there are fair better and cheaper products out there.

What on earth makes you think Nintendo is trying to target the fairly miniscule audience of self-identified "gamers"?

I dont. In fact thats the complete opposite of what i said

Well, sure, I mean, Apple is right up Nintendo's shovelware/family/mainstream alley.

"

conflictofinterests:

Alar:
-snip-

I think a 'hardcore game' or 'hardcore gamer' needs to have an agreed upon definition so that people can stop tip-toeing around the subject. If we're going to segregate gamers with special titles, then the least we can do is exposite on WHY they're different and WHY we're separating them.

I might define a casual gamer as someone who enjoys games that aren't necessarily enhanced by current generation graphics and that are fairly simple to play. Tetris is just as fun in 8bit as in SHINYTEXTURE3D mode. Tetris also has but one objective, and one way to achieve it: Keep your blocks from reaching the top for as long as possible, blow up blocks by completing a row. Hardcore gamers enjoy games that are made more immersive and easier to play as a result of current generation graphics, and require more complicated tactics. The simplest first person shooter nowadays would be incredibly less enjoyable to its audience if everything was redone in polygons and cell shading, and first person view without 3 dimensions is less than satisfying. In those first person shooters as well, one has to keep track of whatever dictates how close they are to dead during their bullet-spewing rages, where their target is, how best to kill the target, and how to avoid that bullet of Mjolnir it intends to shoot at you.

I could be wrong, though. [/quote]"
"

hansari:

Alar:
-snip-

I think a 'hardcore game' or 'hardcore gamer' needs to have an agreed upon definition so that people can stop tip-toeing around the subject. If we're going to segregate gamers with special titles, then the least we can do is exposite on WHY they're different and WHY we're separating them.

Hardcore = frequency of use

If a guy visits the gym once a month, you would say he is somewhat health concious.

If a guy plays many sports, visits the gym three times a week, and has an amazing physique, you would say he is a "hardcore" athelete.

~

With regard to consoles, its no secret the Wii doesn't get much use. From personal experience, how many of you, like me, only see the console in use when a group of people are playing Smash Brawl?

Cause I swear thats pretty much all I ever see. [/quote]"

I am quote fail guy, fear me!

So, by those definitions, someone who plays WoW every day would not be a casual. But there's where we run into problems. I play WoW every day, but I also play on a various amount of alts, and I spend a good deal of that time roleplaying. Would I then be labeled a casual, even though I'm playing a game with relatively modern graphics, situations that require a good deal of strategy, and am spending a lot of time playing it?

Vanguard_Ex:

Aeshi:
Ignoring the horde of mindless Apple-haters who bash a company whose products they never use because they think it makes them cool for a second:

What
the
Hell?

Nintendo is a gaming company.Apple is an electronics company,why would they be any threat to them?

Also if Apple made a console,and said console was like their computers and OS then it would do everything a xbox 360 can except.But the iBox 360 (as it shall now be known) would:

a)It would actually work (instead of crashing because you didn't dunk it in liquid nitrogen in the last 10 seconds)

b)Would run PS3 games on reduced graphics.

c)Add an extra button that can be bound to whatever you want

d)Would load up things faster.

e)Cost about 50% more

f)Is nearly as tough as a Nintendo console.

g)Would come with some free tools.

Of course all the anti-Apple zealots will still hate it anyway,despite never actually trying it

What on earth are you talking about...

I think he's trying to put together about 8 ideas into a single post. Then state what a console made by Apple would be capable of, to put haters how should I say this in their place.

Baconmonster723:

Vanguard_Ex:

Aeshi:
Ignoring the horde of mindless Apple-haters who bash a company whose products they never use because they think it makes them cool for a second:

What
the
Hell?

Nintendo is a gaming company.Apple is an electronics company,why would they be any threat to them?

Also if Apple made a console,and said console was like their computers and OS then it would do everything a xbox 360 can except.But the iBox 360 (as it shall now be known) would:

a)It would actually work (instead of crashing because you didn't dunk it in liquid nitrogen in the last 10 seconds)

b)Would run PS3 games on reduced graphics.

c)Add an extra button that can be bound to whatever you want

d)Would load up things faster.

e)Cost about 50% more

f)Is nearly as tough as a Nintendo console.

g)Would come with some free tools.

Of course all the anti-Apple zealots will still hate it anyway,despite never actually trying it

What on earth are you talking about...

I think he's trying to put together about 8 ideas into a single post. Then state what a console made by Apple would be capable of, to put haters how should I say this in their place.

Oh...well he's certainly done that by completely making up a non-existant console...

Another way to look at this is that Casual gamers are consumers who give higher profit margins, buying games that cost significantly less to make than their Hardcore counterparts.

Apple already took the older demographic for casual portable gaming with the Apple devices already in the market. If Apple made a move to grab the younger demographic then it could potentially harm one of Nintendo's biggest moneymakers, the -DS. And it wouldn't take a major effort on Apple's behalf, as compared to releasing a home console.

Aeshi:

Nintendo is a gaming company.Apple is an electronics company,why would they be any threat to them?

The handheld market. With the increase of size of apple products, the potential is there to create more in depth games. There's a chance that apple will release an outlet device that is used for gaming purposes (I have no idea what it would be, but thats not really the point). By doing so, they could very well steal the market from Nintendo.

I really dont want to be bringing the haters/fanboys/whatever upon me by saying this, but Nintendo just caters for casuals much more often. Holding both the console market and handheld device market for casual games will keep them going. Before the iPod Touch, Apple wasn't really know to be a company that allowed you to play games. Now that the idea of apps and games on the iPod Touch, iPhone, iPad, w/e is becoming VERY popular, if it wasnt already, Nintendo may lose their customers, or gain very few more.

mrhappyface:
This is weird. Are there 2 console wars now? The Casual and the Hardcore with Nintendo vs Apple and Sony vs Microsoft?

Pretty much.

Alar:

Aura Guardian:

dradiscontact:
With all due respect to Nintendo here, Sony isn't their "enemy" anymore because Nintendo, with the exception of a few titles sprinkled here and there, doesn't do hardcore games anymore. The Wii is marketed for casual gamers and children. So in other words, Nintendo beat their competitor by removing itself from the competition. Or something like that...

What's a hardcore game?

I think a 'hardcore game' or 'hardcore gamer' needs to have an agreed upon definition so that people can stop tip-toeing around the subject. If we're going to segregate gamers with special titles, then the least we can do is exposite on WHY they're different and WHY we're separating them.

What do you mean? It's obvious to me what the label means. Hardcore games are anything a given person likes, and casual games are whatever a given person doesn't like so they can feel better about deriding it.

The gist is that both labels are fucking bullshit and are used to demean others, nothing more than that. I've been a gamer for 20 years but apparently I'm not "hardcore" cause I own a Wii and a DS. Nevermind the fact I also own a 360 and a PC. The fact that I have the gall to support Nintendo makes me a "lesser" gamer in the eyes of idiots.

Anyway, back on topic. I still don't see Apple as a threat given that their iWhatevers have more shovelware than the Wii and the DS supposedly do. I mean those are the only consoles with shovelware on them, right? (protip: I'm being incredibly sarcastic)

Straying Bullet:
IN all seriously, the Iphone is literally an extension to my flexible life. I cannot go on without it, I actually can, but if I could keep it, I would.

Apple is renowned for some of the gadgets they bring out. It has a certain amount of class around their products even when they are overpriced. However, Nintendo comes off cheap and plastic in my perspective and I would dread the day they would spam the market with Wii Remote like devices to compete with Apple.

Note: I am not an apple fanboy.

Pff. Wii remotes, cheap any plastic?

I'll give you that on terms of Nintendo's overall reputation, but if you can say that about the Wii, you've obviously never seen what their old stuff looked like.

Then again, old mac products weren't exactly stylish either.
I had a macbook made in 1995 or so, and it's cheap generic grey plastic, just like every other computer from that era.

Still, I dislike the Apple style - Not because it isn't sexy, but because, in my opinion, it takes 'style over substance' a step too far, creating nasty headaches if anything does go wrong. A problem it shares with Sony, incedentally.

If you're a computer technician, there's nothing worse than needing to dissasemble a Mac, (but a Sony laptop often comes close)

But... That won't matter to anyone that never fixes their own stuff.

Well, If you look back to where they started, Nintendo made their first arcade game in 1978 and Apple was incorporated in 1977, so basically they started really close at the same time for the electronic era.

But if you look back even further, Nintendo officially started in 1889 for some card game thing I can't remember of.

In other words,

Let the match begin!

Mr. Grey:
i it's Sony that doesn't have to worry about you anymore.

Except that, you know, Nintendo outsells Sony on the console department. You know, like a million to one or something, and earns a lot more money on each sold Wii and DS than Sony does with it's PS3 and PSP (even though the PS3 is now finally making money, woohoo!).

I don't think you can deny that the DS is infinitely more popular than the PSP, and that popularity-wise it's especially Apple that rivals Nintendo with their iPhone.

But anyway, I wouldn't call this so much news, they've been talking about Apple threatening Nintendo for some months now.

Straying Bullet:
Apple is renowned for some of the gadgets they bring out. It has a certain amount of class around their products even when they are overpriced. However, Nintendo comes off cheap and plastic in my perspective and I would dread the day they would spam the market with Wii Remote like devices to compete with Apple.

Class? You mean marketed coolness? That "hip people have this, so you must have one too!" shtick? Like this?


That's the problem, it's all flashy coolness on the outside, but underneath the bonnet their products are anything but special and you can get something better or equally good for a lower price.

Meh.

Consoles and handhelds have been dying for a long time. This latest trend of selling out to the mainstream, family friendly market is just another nail to the coffin.

I'll stick to my PC.

Pirate Kitty:
Meh.

Consoles and handhelds have been dying for a long time. This latest trend of selling out to the mainstream, family friendly market is just another nail to the coffin.

I'll stick to my PC.

I love my PC just as much, but...really? That's just a silly thing to say, it's like denying the existence of the PS2, Wii and DS no matter how meh one thinks they are.

Fact is, consoles offer a gaming platform that's a lot easier to access than PC gaming ever will be. Lots and lots of people like that and if that wouldn't be the case we wouldn't have 7 generations of consoles now.

I really have no clue where you got that "consoles and handhelds have been dying for a long time" from. Console gaming is more popular than ever before.

Cowabungaa:

Pirate Kitty:
Meh.

Consoles and handhelds have been dying for a long time. This latest trend of selling out to the mainstream, family friendly market is just another nail to the coffin.

I'll stick to my PC.

I love my PC just as much, but...really? That's just a silly thing to say, it's like denying the existence of the PS2, Wii and DS no matter how meh one thinks they are.

Fact is, consoles offer a gaming platform that's a lot easier to access than PC gaming ever will be. Lots and lots of people like that and if that wouldn't be the case we wouldn't have 7 generations of consoles now.

I really have no clue where you got that "consoles and handhelds have been dying for a long time" from. Console gaming is more popular than ever before.

Not dying as in going away, no. They are indeed more popular than ever.

If it makes it easer, when you read it replace dying with 'decaying to a state in which I couldn't care any less about them'.

Pirate Kitty:
Not dying as in going away, no. They are indeed more popular than ever.

If it makes it easer, when you read it replace dying with 'decaying to a state in which I couldn't care any less about them'.

Even that is quite a harsh thing to say when there are still 2 good consoles out there (the PSP is...hanging on) with lots of good games on it.

Even the Wii has plenty of fantastic titles, not to mention the rich library of the DS, despite both platform's shovelware problems. The Fatal Frame series, Resident Evil, Professor Layton, Advanced Wars, Metroid Prime, No More Heroes, etc etc etc. It's not all Cooking Mama and Brain Training, despite what the commercials would make you believe.

I don't get the bitching about platforms anyway, isn't it all about the games? A friend of mine hated Uncharted, Gears of War, Fatal Frame, Condemned 2 and many other games for the sole reason...that they were released on consoles. That's just plain ridiculous, not to mention incredibly unreasonable.

If a game is good, who cares what platform it's on, and why would one dismiss a good game because the platform it's on has lots of other crappy games. That's like hating CS:S because Big Rigs is also on the PC.

Cowabungaa:

Pirate Kitty:
Not dying as in going away, no. They are indeed more popular than ever.

If it makes it easer, when you read it replace dying with 'decaying to a state in which I couldn't care any less about them'.

Even that is quite a harsh thing to say when there are still 2 good consoles out there (the PSP is...hanging on) with lots of good games on it.

Even the Wii has plenty of fantastic titles, not to mention the rich library of the DS, despite both platform's shovelware problems. The Fatal Frame series, Resident Evil, Professor Layton, Advanced Wars, Metroid Prime, No More Heroes, etc etc etc. It's not all Cooking Mama and Brain Training, despite what the commercials would make you believe.

I don't get the bitching about platforms anyway, isn't it all about the games? A friend of mine hated Uncharted, Gears of War, Fatal Frame, Condemned 2 and many other games for the sole reason...that they were released on consoles. That's just plain ridiculous, not to mention incredibly unreasonable.

If a game is good, who cares what platform it's on, and why would one dismiss a good game because the platform it's on has lots of other crappy games. That's like hating CS:S because Big Rigs is also on the PC.

I simply prefer to play on my console.

There's no 'fighting the mainstream' or hate just to be hateful.

And with the push all consoles are making towards the family market, it is easier for me to get the games I want on my PC.

Simple.

Pirate Kitty:
I simply prefer to play on my console.

There's no 'fighting the mainstream' or hate just to be hateful.

And with the push all consoles are making towards the family market, it is easier for me to get the games I want on my PC.

Simple.

Sure, so do I, but it's still unfair to dismiss a crapload of good games, that happen to be on consoles, because of certain marketing strategies (that are going to fail anyway, as Nintendo will still reign supreme in the family market and only Apple can rival them handheld-wise).

Doesn't make a lot of sense, why does that make it 'easier to get the games I want on my PC'? That phrase alone sounds so...odd. It's not like it was any harder before. Well Steam sure made it easier, but still, not getting what you mean.

Cowabungaa:

Pirate Kitty:
I simply prefer to play on my console.

There's no 'fighting the mainstream' or hate just to be hateful.

And with the push all consoles are making towards the family market, it is easier for me to get the games I want on my PC.

Simple.

Sure, so do I, but it's still unfair to dismiss a crapload of good games, that happen to be on consoles, because of certain marketing strategies (that are going to fail anyway, as Nintendo will still reign supreme in the family market and only Apple can rival them handheld-wise).

Doesn't make a lot of sense, why does that make it 'easier to get the games I want on my PC'? That phrase alone sounds so...odd. It's not like it was any harder before. Well Steam sure made it easier, but still, not getting what you mean.

The people vote with their wallet. The more money the consoles make, the more the company is told they are doing their job.

I was recently treated fairly poorly - that is to say, disgracefully - by an employee of a company which shall go unnamed here. I complained to the owner who said 'tough'. I told them I'd never purchase from them again, nor shall I ever recommend them to anyone, and I took my money next-door to their biggest competitor who was more than happy to treat me well and take my money.

A song lyric comes to mind: "Mute protest of a new bastard form. Indentured to mammon, further bondage is bore."

Aeshi:
Ignoring the horde of mindless Apple-haters who bash a company whose products they never use because they think it makes them cool for a second:

What
the
Hell?

Nintendo is a gaming company.Apple is an electronics company,why would they be any threat to them?

Also if Apple made a console,and said console was like their computers and OS then it would do everything a xbox 360 can except.But the iBox 360 (as it shall now be known) would:

a)It would actually work (instead of crashing because you didn't dunk it in liquid nitrogen in the last 10 seconds)

b)Would run PS3 games on reduced graphics.

c)Add an extra button that can be bound to whatever you want

d)Would load up things faster.

e)Cost about 50% more

f)Is nearly as tough as a Nintendo console.

g)Would come with some free tools.

Ahahahaha

a) MS solved those issues but yes older 360s were crap, PS3 though is not a space heater.
b) Yes because getting sued by Sony is a smart business move.
c) Mac having anything being customizable? Not happening. MacOSX is the most closed form of consumer available Unix you can find. iConsoleOS (if it existed) would be even more closed.
d)Last I checked they used the same hardware or lower as everyone else, and their OS is bloated Unix, even Ubuntu is slicker and lighter.
e)Accurate
f)Nothing is as durable as Nintendo, unless you count the old OS9 Macs, back when Apple made good computers. I have a Performa630CD Mac running OS9 that still works despite me ignoring it. It is made of pure win.
g)Lol wut? iPhoneOS is not free to develop for, costs 99$ for the SDK and requires a Mac. PS3 and Xbox also require payed SDKs and require Windows. PSP homebrew though can be made using open source SDKs in Windows or Linux. iConsoleOS (if it existed) would also cost to develop for and have a draconic approval process and tons of shovelware like the appstore (which does has some awesome stuff though).

Final Nail in the Coffin: Pipin, they tried and died before. image

The last good worthwhile mac ran OS9, I'll stick to Unix/Linux and Windows for now.

Apple should stick to the mobile market, its the only thing they're doing right from a business perspective. Nintendo sees them as Handheld Casual games competition, so of course they remove Sony and Microsoft from their competitors list.

Pirate Kitty:
The people vote with their wallet. The more money the consoles make, the more the company is told they are doing their job.

I was recently treated fairly poorly - that is to say, disgracefully - by an employee of a company which shall go unnamed here. I complained to the owner who said 'tough'. I told them I'd never purchase from them again, nor shall I ever recommend them to anyone, and I took my money next-door to their biggest competitor who was more than happy to treat me well and take my money.

A song lyric comes to mind: "Mute protest of a new bastard form. Indentured to mammon, further bondage is bore."

Still not seeing your point as playing on a console doesn't equal buying all the shovelware that's on it and thus supporting the development of crappy games. There's a bucket of crappy games on the PC as well, you're not supporting those by simply playing on the PC as well now are you?

In a way, what you're promoting is a sort of self-fulfilling prophesy. See the situation of a certain console as a weighing scale. One arm contains the family market with it's crappy shovelware, the other arm the quality games that aren't a part of the family marketing scheme. By ignoring the entire console you're not giving any money to the family market, yes, but you're also ignoring the quality games who are marketed at the more traditional gamer.

If lots of people would do that 'proper' developers would have less incentive to develop good games for that platform, making the scale tip in favour of the family market even though you haven't spend a dime on shovelware family games. It's counter-productive.

Denying companies profit is an incentive, but giving companies profits is a damn good one as well.

Cowabungaa:
SNIP

I disagree with what they are doing. I don't give them money. Easy.

Pirate Kitty:

Cowabungaa:
SNIP

I disagree with what they are doing. I don't give them money. Easy.

But who are "they"? There's a ton of game developers not joining in with that marketing scheme who are still releasing on consoles. Nintendo isn't the only one who makes games for the Wii, Sony isn't the only PS3 developer and Microsoft isn't for his 360.

Plus, it's just Nintendo who really aims at the family market, the other ones barely are; Microsoft is aiming at the average college student, Sony is aiming at the 'hardcore' gamer. It'd be a stupid business move to try to really combat Nintendo on that front.

And once again, it's counter-productive. Buying, say, a Wii does not equal buying Nintendo's family marketing scheme. If anything, not buying those games and still getting a Wii shows a more active response; I don't like the direction this console is trying to take, so I'll stick with these titles.

If lots of people would do that it would send out a powerful message to more traditional gaming developers; it's not just the family games who are popular on this platform, we like these traditional games too. That's an incentive that makes the scale tip in your favour, tips it away from the family marketing strategy and in the end might propel Nintendo to market the console to other crowds. What you're doing just makes it worse, gives Nintendo more reason to continue marketing their console the way they're doing.

Cowabungaa:

Pirate Kitty:

Cowabungaa:
SNIP

I disagree with what they are doing. I don't give them money. Easy.

But who are "they"? There's a ton of game developers not joining in with that marketing scheme who are still releasing on consoles. Nintendo isn't the only one who makes games for the Wii, Sony isn't the only PS3 developer and Microsoft isn't for his 360.

Plus, it's just Nintendo who really aims at the family market, the other ones barely are; Microsoft is aiming at the average college student, Sony is aiming at the 'hardcore' gamer. It'd be a stupid business move to try to really combat Nintendo on that front.

And once again, it's counter-productive. Buying, say, a Wii does not equal buying Nintendo's family marketing scheme. If anything, not buying those games and still getting a Wii shows a more active response; I don't like the direction this console is trying to take, so I'll stick with these titles.

If lots of people would do that it would send out a powerful message to more traditional gaming developers; it's not just the family games who are popular on this platform, we like these traditional games too. That's an incentive that makes the scale tip in your favour, tips it away from the family marketing strategy. What you're doing just makes it worse.

Okay. I can see you don't get my point at all so I will use an extreme example.

Say, for sake of this example, there was some company that made shirts. Now, say there was one or two shirts you thought were okay and you were thinking about buying them. However, before you do, you discover this shirt company happens to also have a white supremacy line of clothing. Sure, you can buy the shirts you like, but do you want to give money to that company? No?

Neither do I.

I am certainly not saying white supremacy is anywhere near as insanely stupid as Microsoft and Sony choosing to sell to a specific market. There is nothing wrong at all with them wanting to do this - free market for the win.

However, I don't like their new focus and I don't want them to have my money.

Pirate Kitty:
Okay. I can see you don't get my point at all so I will use an extreme example.

Say, for sake of this example, there was some company that made shirts. Now, say there was one or two shirts you thought were okay and you were thinking about buying them. However, before you do, you discover this shirt company happens to also have a white supremacy line of clothing. Sure, you can buy the shirts you like, but do you want to give money to that company? No?

Neither do I.

I am certainly not saying white supremacy is anywhere near as insanely stupid as Microsoft and Sony choosing to sell to a specific market. There is nothing wrong at all with them wanting to do this - free market for the win.

However, I don't like their new focus and I don't want them to have my money.

I get your point, I just don't see it's relevance or why it should make sense. In your t-shirt example it's the same company that makes the racist shirts, this does not translate well to the matter at hand because it's not just the company that employs the marketing scheme you don't like that makes games for their platform. There's a lot of completely unaffiliated companies that make the majority of the actual games.

Again, it's not like you support a console producer's new focus simply by buying the console. You only do so when you fall for their marketing scheme, buy the games and services they want you to buy so that more developers will develop the kind of games they market which in term attracts more of the focus group and get the whole snowball effect going.

Plus it's not like PC exclusives aren't aimed at a certain group either (think titles like Starcraft, Crysis, Metro 2033), and it's just Nintendo that's taking the family friendly route so I have no idea what you have against the other consoles.

Cowabungaa:
SNIP

You don't get my point at all so we will have to agree to disagree.

Pirate Kitty:

Cowabungaa:
SNIP

You don't get my point at all so we will have to agree to disagree.

I do, again I just don't see how it makes sense. PC games are marketed somehow, consoles are marketed somehow, console games are marketed somehow, everything is marketed somehow, what's the big deal?

And again, what's the beef with the other consoles? Nintendo has it's family direction, apparently you don't like that, fine, neither do I. But what's with the other console's marketing positions then?

Cowabungaa:

Pirate Kitty:
Okay. I can see you don't get my point at all so I will use an extreme example.

Say, for sake of this example, there was some company that made shirts. Now, say there was one or two shirts you thought were okay and you were thinking about buying them. However, before you do, you discover this shirt company happens to also have a white supremacy line of clothing. Sure, you can buy the shirts you like, but do you want to give money to that company? No?

Neither do I.

I am certainly not saying white supremacy is anywhere near as insanely stupid as Microsoft and Sony choosing to sell to a specific market. There is nothing wrong at all with them wanting to do this - free market for the win.

However, I don't like their new focus and I don't want them to have my money.

I get your point, I just don't see it's relevance or why it should make sense. In your t-shirt example it's the same company that makes the racist shirts, this does not translate well to the matter at hand because it's not just the company that employs the marketing scheme you don't like that makes games for their platform. There's a lot of completely unaffiliated companies that make the majority of the actual games.

Again, it's not like you support a console producer's new focus simply by buying the console. You only do so when you fall for their marketing scheme, buy the games and services they want you to buy so that more developers will develop the kind of games they market which in term attracts more of the focus group and get the whole snowball effect going.

Plus it's not like PC exclusives aren't aimed at a certain group either (think titles like Starcraft, Crysis, Metro 2033), and it's just Nintendo that's taking the family friendly route so I have no idea what you have against the other consoles.

Cowabunga, you are arguing with someone who most likely has borderline personality disorder.

She sees the entire world in terms of all "good" and all "bad". Consoles are "bad" to her. "Bad" is a threat to "good". Since PCs are "good", then PCs and consoles are clearly in some sort of death struggle in the world she has constructed in her imagination.

In her world, consoles are a threat, so they must die. She can even modify the meaning of the word "die" if she needs this to happen. So, even though consoles are increasing in popularity, they are "dying", so her world is improving. Go figure.

I wouldn't have jumped in and commented, but you're repeatedly asking for reason from someone who doesn't really appear to have the capacity for it.

PhiMed:
Cowabunga, you are arguing with someone who most likely has borderline personality disorder.

She sees the entire world in terms of all "good" and all "bad". Consoles are "bad" to her. "Bad" is a threat to "good". Since PCs are "good", then PCs and consoles are clearly in some sort of death struggle in the world she has constructed in her imagination.

In her world, consoles are a threat, so they must die. She can even modify the meaning of the word "die" if she needs this to happen. So, even though consoles are increasing in popularity, they are "dying", so her world is improving. Go figure.

I wouldn't have jumped in and commented, but you're repeatedly asking for reason from someone who doesn't really appear to have the capacity for it.

That...sounds a bit harsh, judging from those comments. I ain't one to judge about those sort of things.

Cowabungaa:
SNIP

Ah well. You argued your points very well and I get what you're saying, but we just don't see eye to eye. No biggie :)

PhiMed:
SNIP

Lol. Armchair psychiatrists are cute.

Aeshi:
a)It would actually work (instead of crashing because you didn't dunk it in liquid nitrogen in the last 10 seconds)

b)Would run PS3 games on reduced graphics.

c)Add an extra button that can be bound to whatever you want

d)Would load up things faster.

e)Cost about 50% more

f)Is nearly as tough as a Nintendo console.

g)Would come with some free tools.

I use an iMac for my school work (as in, I do multimedia stuff), and here's my experience with Apple products:

a) It would work except when you actually need it to work, and even then it's iffy

b) It would play music, have limited internet support on a browser that's outdated by about 10 years, and be designed so that Steve Jobs' cat can figure out how to use it

c) Add a bindable button that is in the most awkward area of the controller

d) Would load things faster... except when you actually need it to

e) Would cost about 3-4x more, and do half as much

f) Online multiplayer would cost $100-120 per year

g) Would come with a free picture of Steve Jobs' new solid-gold yacht, which your purchase of the iStationBoxCube pretty much singlehandedly paid for

:)

OT: I think Nintendo has been moving in that general direction this console generation. If anybody can dethrone Apple from their high seat (seeing how cats and 3 year olds can use iPads, perhaps 'highchair' is a better term?), I think Nintendo's the wacky, fun-loving company that would succeed.

Off-off-topic: Am I the only one who thinks that "iPad" was poor product nomenclature?

Pirate Kitty:

Cowabungaa:
SNIP

Ah well. You argued your points very well and I get what you're saying, but we just don't see eye to eye. No biggie :)

Wait a second, it's not that, I just don't get it. An adversity to the Wii sure, that has a clear marketing strategy that conflicts with many more traditional gamers, but what's with the rest? What direction are they taking that's apparently so awful for you?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here