Why can't Nintendo just sell their systems at a loss?

#121darkjedilinkPosted 6/22/2011 10:34:02 AM
RevolutionV posted...
^If you have read the OP and other posts, you would know the answer to this question.

Here are some reasons:
-Push technology forward
-Get more advanced technological systems to gamers without breaking the bank
-Long term investment as opposed to short-term gain
-Investment on cutting-edge technology
-Probably to "try" to compete with the fast moving PC technology
-Better for gamers if we get more cutting edge tech
-Gives developers and creative people more choices to create games, without the limitations of old tech.
-Etc
-etc


Neither Sony or MS have pushed gaming tech forward, nor is there anything "cutting edge" about either of them. Sony tried with the Cell, but it's a horrid CPU. For the cost of a PS3 at launch, I could have built a much more capable gaming PC using newer and better tech. Also, there is no "investing in consoles." Neither MS nor Sony will get back the money they lost on their respective consoles purely on console sales.

Your whole post is based on the incorrect assumption that the PS3 and 360 were unrivaled tech-wise at dome point in their lifecycles. They were dwarfed by cheaper PC's
---
Darkjedilink has what most would consider the Triforcelightning.
-Nintendojitsu
#122Sirian_HawkPosted 6/22/2011 10:36:54 AM
darkjedilink posted...
RevolutionV posted...
^If you have read the OP and other posts, you would know the answer to this question.

Here are some reasons:
-Push technology forward
-Get more advanced technological systems to gamers without breaking the bank
-Long term investment as opposed to short-term gain
-Investment on cutting-edge technology
-Probably to "try" to compete with the fast moving PC technology
-Better for gamers if we get more cutting edge tech
-Gives developers and creative people more choices to create games, without the limitations of old tech.
-Etc
-etc

Neither Sony or MS have pushed gaming tech forward, nor is there anything "cutting edge" about either of them. Sony tried with the Cell, but it's a horrid CPU. For the cost of a PS3 at launch, I could have built a much more capable gaming PC using newer and better tech. Also, there is no "investing in consoles." Neither MS nor Sony will get back the money they lost on their respective consoles purely on console sales.

Your whole post is based on the incorrect assumption that the PS3 and 360 were unrivaled tech-wise at dome point in their lifecycles. They were dwarfed by cheaper PC's


Why did you repost the same exact message two hours later?
---
"To hell with your spoiled baby! Zoidberg needs those shoes!"
#123darkjedilinkPosted 6/22/2011 11:08:38 AM
Didn't mean to. My phone's acting wierd.
---
Darkjedilink has what most would consider the Triforcelightning.
-Nintendojitsu
#124RevolutionVPosted 6/22/2011 1:55:50 PM
^ You can not seriously compare a console platform to a PC. PC's are living, ever-evolving platforms and if you have the money, you could build stuff that a console could never touch. That is why I did not mention PCs in any of my posts. As far as the 360 and PS3s, they did push the envelop at their time of release, and they are still very powerful systems. There are PS3 networks that are being used a super computers for research and other purposes. Both MS and Sony were pretty cutting-edge in the home console market when they introduced the current next gen consoles.
#125darkjedilinkPosted 6/22/2011 2:26:12 PM
Of course they were cutting edge in the home console market - they were the newest and most powerful consoles. That's not what was said. You said "pushing technology forward" and cutting edge technology." Neither system had either of these things going for it, as the PC market had already dwarfed them both by the time they released.

As has been stated many times, Sony and MS didn't dell their systems at a loss for some altruistic purpose such as giving consumers easier access to better tech or to "push the envelope." They did it as a business gamble, hoping the power of their systems would allow them to sell more and get a bigger volume discount on production later while profiting on peripherals and games in the short term. They both had money from other divisions with which to make this gamble. Sony lost. MS didn't hit big, but they were on the positive end of it.

On the flip side, do you really think tha Nintendo hasn't advanced gaming tech? Do you believe they haven't pushed the envelope? Who do you think got Sony and MS into the home console business in the first place?
---
Darkjedilink has what most would consider the Triforcelightning.
-Nintendojitsu
#126RevolutionVPosted 6/22/2011 2:58:52 PM
There was someone else before Nintendo, so they all owe their businesses to someone else (including computer-based games like Pong). Yes, Sony and MS were pushing technology forward in the context of home consoles, like I said earlier and I even added that they were "trying" keep up with PCs (in quotes). Nintendo has pushed a lot gimmicky ideas, some that have stuck and some that have totally failed (virtual boy, power glove etc), so I wouldn't say that they do not innovate, but they have become more conservative in their approach lately. And of course Sony and MS are not gambling for the good of humanity or other altruistic ideas, they are doing it because they are a business.


By the way, I would never trade my consoles for a PC; there's something about PC gaming that turns me off, I don't know why. StarCraft was the only PC game actually got my attention back in the day.
#127Ebil_ZidanePosted 6/22/2011 6:10:06 PM
I saw a lot of arguments using the core gamer debate. I want to throw out there that I have a roommate who has never really played a video game beyond attempting Super Smash. Bros (so therefore a casual gamer) and they loved Assassin's Creed. I see people bringing up Uncharted and Halo and LBP, but allow of those games have elements that appeal to casual gamers. They are approachable and easy to teach people the basics. Additionally, they provide enough fun in little chunks that a casual gamer can come into the room and ask to try the game without being very confused.

The only real core games I see left would be dungeon crawlers (like Wizardry and Etrian Odyssey) and games like Starcraft or any of the Elder Scrolls games.
---
Thou art I, and I am thou. From the sea of thy soul I cometh.
I am Orpheus, master of strings...