|
RagnarokAngel posted:Yeah the sequels being on PSP was more of "didn't sell enough to justify console sales numbers" than "lets create a ton of spinoffs" Let's not forget highschool simulator instead of just "War story". I'm a huge Sega fan and it just upsets me when they do dumb crap like that. Though they did recently acquire Atlus and the rumor with that is they want to have them make some of their older RPGs. ImpAtom posted:Not mention that the Vita/PS4 interplay is a really big deal while Microsoft does not and never had a dedicated handheld gaming device to make that an issue. I'm more concerned with this gen being more of the same which isn't going to be much of a surprise since the gaming industry keeps going downhill. As of right now the only console I really want to own is the WiiU because they're doing crazy things with ZombiU (What I've been told is a FPS Roguelike) and Wonderful101. Zain fucked around with this message at 15:06 on Dec 11, 2013 |
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 15:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 22:09 |
|
|
A Steampunk Gent posted:Look at this. Look at these awful words you wrote. You're actually suggesting Nintendo could emulate All The Bravest simply because it would return value to shareholders, brushing aside that is would be an hideous creative decision without comparison. The games industry is in a stagnant enough position as it is without the player-base itself advocating a monetisation race-to-the-bottom. Okay... So this thread wants Nintendo to make money. But they want Nintendo to either make money by spending the maximum amount of money they have to build the strongest possible console (when everyone knows that consoles have maybe one, maybe two generations left of existing) or want Nintendo to just assimilate and conform to being a third party for a company that has more money than them. Because Nintendo trying their own thing and being unique to themselves should be frowned upon and we should celebrate the fact that despite succeeding with their strategies on the Wii and DS, they are now failing with the Wii U and originally stumbled out of the gate with the 3DS. Do I have this right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 15:12
|
|
|
Paper Jam Dipper posted:Do I have this right? The thread isn't everyone agreeing on one or two conclusions, it's quite a lot of people with different ideas, so not really. Besides that would you agree that the Wii U is not doing great and maybe celebrating diversity won't make Nintendo any money? Media Create numbers are in for last week! quote:Hardware Sales (followed by last week’s sales) Software at #6 (new DQ title, 70k copies) and #7 (SM3DW, another 44k for 183k total). That same DQ title was also released on the Wii and sold 117k copies on that format, which is a little troublesome. PS3 bump is GT6, I guess? Would've thought anyone buying a console for GT would've already had one for GT5, but there you go. 4 new games on the 3DS, none sold more than 93k and none sold more than X/Y.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 15:57
|
|
|
Edmund Honda posted:The thread isn't everyone agreeing on one or two conclusions, it's quite a lot of people with different ideas, so not really. Besides that would you agree that the Wii U is not doing great and maybe celebrating diversity won't make Nintendo any money? To be fair if this is DQX we're talking about it's a MMO and culture in Japan pretty much makes playing MMO undesirable. It was a dumb move on Square's behalf to make a MMO that is only in Japan and they're paying the price for it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 16:04
|
|
|
It's kind of crazy to think that Nintendo is making 75% of all hardware sales, yet people want them to stop making hardware
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 16:08
|
|
|
Thats japan and the previous months the wii u was selling LESS than ps3s. Do you have a chart for the US and European markets?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 16:12
|
|
|
Cao Ni Ma posted:Thats japan and the previous months the wii u was selling LESS than ps3s. Do you have a chart for the US and European markets? NPD comes out tomorrow for November for US Sales. Hint: It will be a disaster because the PS4 and Bone have probably moved a million units each in that territory alone.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 16:13
|
|
|
Paper Jam Dipper posted:Okay... The mistake they've been making, and are still making, more than the expensive controller, in my opinion, is that they've been putting way too much emphasis on side-scrolling platformers. The underwhelming Cranky Kong announcement is, again in my opinion, a symptom of that: It's yet another side-scrolling platformer, and there's not a lot of excitement anymore for this type of game. While such games might sell well and many people enjoy them, I don't think many people are going to buy a console just for that, and also the market's been rather saturated with them recently, in particular on Nintendo consoles with the glut of NSMB games they've been releasing for all of their platforms. Mario 3D World, I expect, is going to move somewhat more consoles but on its own it's still not going to be remotely enough to get any kind of momentum going for a $300 console; my prediction (and iirc some sales numbers will become available tomorrow?) that there'll be a slight increase in the number of Wii U's sold this month, but not nearly as much as necessary or maybe hoped and predicted for by Nintendo based solely on the strength of 3D World alone. A pertinent post I remember reading earlier in this thread said something to the effect of "probably a lot of people googled 'price of wii u' in reaction to 3D Mario World's release and then sighed in disappointment when they found out." Still it's not the price itself alone that's the problem, in my opinion; it's the price combined with the fact that 3D World is the only compelling game they have on that level so far, and people are (understandably) reluctant to buy what amounts, in their eyes, to a $300 "Super Mario 3D World machine." Once this becomes two, three, or even four games of that calibre, however, the situation might change and people take another look, in particular those who are now eyeing 3D World jealously but reluctant to buy into an expensive platform for that alone, which I think might be a quite respectable segment of the market. In summary (and this might count as a TL:DR version of this lengthy post), I think, even now that they've finally released 3D World, Nintendo still need to make with the games. And substantial games that move consoles, side-scrolling/2D platformers don't count. NSMBU doesn't count, Super Luigi U doesn't count and Donkey Kong: Tropical Freeze won't matter where it counts, and that is, in number of consoles sold. Similarly, I don't think many people are going to buy a $300 supposed "next-gen" console for WWHD, a slight graphical update and rerelease of a now nearly 10 year old game. Super Mario 3D World might have done it on its own, if it had been a launch title; but it wasn't, and Nintendo have lost a lot of consumer confidence in the year that the console has been out with hardly anything to justify its existence. PrBacterio fucked around with this message at 16:26 on Dec 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 16:23
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Rare developed 5 different games for the GBA, and 2 for the DS, years after they became a department of Microsoft. Check who actually published those games. It wasn't Microsoft. That was part of the whole weird "Rare goes to Microsoft from Nintendo" thing in the first place. Rare specifically intended to continue development of GBA games after Microsoft purchased them but Microsoft was not publishing them. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 16:29 on Dec 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 16:25
|
|
|
Cao Ni Ma posted:Thats japan and the previous months the wii u was selling LESS than ps3s. Why must you be so quick with the hate
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 16:32
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Check who actually published those games. It wasn't Microsoft. That was part of the whole weird "Rare goes to Microsoft from Nintendo" thing in the first place. Rare specifically intended to continue development of GBA games after Microsoft purchased them but Microsoft was not publishing them. It doesn't matter who published them, Rare developed the games while being entirely owned by Microsoft, that was the point. Rare was acquired in 2002, Diddy Kong Racing DS was released for DS in 2007, somehow I don't think that's an artifact of the acquisition timing. PrBacterio, 2d mario games consistently outsell the 3d ones, for all Nintendo's problems I don't think the 2d Mario games were a bad choice. They are giving people what they want there to some degree, though I'm sure there's some buyer fatigue over New Super Waluigi Brothers or whatever it is up to now. Jeffrey of YOSPOS fucked around with this message at 16:37 on Dec 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 16:33
|
|
|
Yes, consistently making good-to-excellent 2D platformers starring their main IP was a bad idea
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 16:40
|
|
|
I'm not disputing the excellence of these games or that they sell well; the original NSMB for the DS is one of my all-time favorite games ever. And I do know they sell like gangbusters. Didn't NSMB sell something crazy like 30 million copies? But I think people in this thread are making the same mistake Nintendo made: Believing that a lot of people buying, playing and enjoying these games translates into a similar number of console sales. I don't think that is true. People who already own a Wii U may go out in droves and buy NSMBU and Super Luigi U, and probably the new Donkey Kong game as well. People who don't, though, aren't going to buy a Wii U just for that; consumers expect something more. I think 3D World fits that bill, but I also think that a single game like that is not enough anymore, a this point, to convince people to buy into the platform; it would have been as a launch title, but not after a year-long drought.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 16:48
|
|
|
flyboi posted:To be fair if this is DQX we're talking about it's a MMO and culture in Japan pretty much makes playing MMO undesirable. It was a dumb move on Square's behalf to make a MMO that is only in Japan and they're paying the price for it. Really? I thought the (good) Final Fantasy MMOs did well over there. Why the stigma?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 16:52
|
|
|
PrBacterio posted:I'm not disputing the excellence of these games or that they sell well; the original NSMB for the DS is one of my all-time favorite games ever. And I do know they sell like gangbusters. Didn't NSMB sell something crazy like 30 million copies? But I think people in this thread are making the same mistake Nintendo made: Believing that a lot of people buying, playing and enjoying these games translates into a similar number of console sales. I don't think that is true. People who already own a Wii U may go out in droves and buy NSMBU and Super Luigi U, and probably the new Donkey Kong game as well. People who don't, though, aren't going to buy a Wii U just for that; consumers expect something more. I think 3D World fits that bill, but I also think that a single game like that is not enough anymore, a this point, to convince people to buy into the platform; it would have been as a launch title, but not after a year-long drought. It shouldn't have been the launch title. 3D World should have been the launch title. It was probably easier to make and such but despite everyone's love for HD, some people couldn't see the difference between NSMB Wii and NSMB U and that meant people didn't see the quality jump between Wii and Wii U. When you saw Super Mario World, you knew it couldn't be made on an NES. When you saw Mario 64, you knew it couldn't be made on a SNES. When you saw Luigi's Mansion, you knew it couldn't be made on an N64. The Wii was a bit different since it wasn't made as a serious leap between it and the Gamecube as the innovation focus wasn't processing but control. But Wii U was supposed to be a leap from the Wii, and New Super Mario Bros. U had trouble showing that. Super Mario 3D World, on the other hand, looks like something that couldn't be done on the Wii. That's why it should have been the launch title. The Wii U launch had a ton of games but no killer app in the first six months. It took a year for that killer app to release.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 17:08
|
|
|
Paper Jam Dipper posted:The Wii U launch had a ton of games but no killer app in the first six months. It took a year for that killer app to release.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 17:12
|
|
|
Sakurai should have set aside work on Kid Icarus and started in on Smash Bros earlier. They really dropped the ball not getting Smash out in the release window.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 17:23
|
|
|
Jeffrey posted:It doesn't matter who published them, Rare developed the games while being entirely owned by Microsoft, that was the point. Rare was acquired in 2002, Diddy Kong Racing DS was released for DS in 2007, somehow I don't think that's an artifact of the acquisition timing. Fulchrum posted:Why the heck not? Nintendo were perfectly fine with allowing Microsoft to publish their games on the GBA despite the Xbox Beating the Gamecube. Yes, it actually does matter. Microsoft did not publish those games and the bulk of them were by Rare who was formerly working with Nintendo and who has a lot of weird contract things in place. Microsoft was not publishing games on the GBA. They were licensing their IPs out to someone who was. This is different and not at all relevant to Nintendo publishing on Sony systems while maintaining their own dedicated handheld. And yes, Diddy Kong Racing DS actually is an artifact of the acquisition! That is also why Donkey Kong Country is no longer on the eShop despite it being a Nintendo IP. Diddy Kong Racing DS is a remake of an existing Rare game and whatever weird shenanigans were involved lead to Rare remaking their own game. It still wasn't published by Microsoft. You'll even notice that Conker and Banjo (two IPs Microsoft was using) were removed from that version of the game. Rare is a strange case of a company that was largely owned by Nintendo, working as a second party developer for Nintendo, and then was bought out completely by MIcrosoft, and so there are strange contract issues involved, especially as Rare was smart enough to hang onto the IPs they created. Trying to point to it as an example of "c'mon guys, Sony will let Nintendo publish without trouble" is flawed at best. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 17:36 on Dec 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 17:25
|
|
|
We're talking about Nintendo developing games for other consoles, regardless of whether that dude typed the word 'publish' or not. I'm not even saying I would agree with them deciding to do this, but yes, Nintendo developing games for Xbox would be identical to Microsoft developing games for 3ds, which they did. The fact that Nintendo might have to have a partner publish them instead of self-publishing isn't really all that relevant. Rare(Microsoft) was not still under contract to develop Diddy Kong Racing DS after 5 years, they decided to do that themselves. Microsoft didn't self-publish in that case, it doesn't really change that they developed the game. Either way, you can pretend I said viva pinata DS then, argument holds. I agree it is different with Sony anyway, since Vita is a thing that exists and Microsoft doesn't compete in that space. I think that, if push came to shove, Sony wouldn't walk away from the deal if Nintendo wouldn't budge on 3ds production. That could change if Nintendo's business continues to decline though, so they'd have to propose the deal while they still have enough bargaining power to walk away.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 17:47
|
|
|
Jeffrey posted:Rare(Microsoft) was not still under contract to develop Diddy Kong Racing DS after 5 years, they decided to do that themselves. Microsoft didn't self-publish in that case, it doesn't really change that they developed the game. Either way, you can pretend I said viva pinata DS then, argument holds.  Rare is owned by Microsoft but they were contracted out to third party developers. Again, this is not the same situation at all. It is Microsoft (or rather Rare) IPs but not Microsoft publishing which is significant. Jeffrey posted:I agree it is different with Sony anyway, since Vita is a thing that exists and Microsoft doesn't compete in that space. I think that, if push came to shove, Sony wouldn't walk away from the deal if Nintendo wouldn't budge on 3ds production. That could change if Nintendo's business continues to decline though, so they'd have to propose the deal while they still have enough bargaining power to walk away. There is no universe in which Sony would throw their own hardware under the bus like that. They would have no reason to. Nintendo, even in a position of strength, is not going to start publishing exclusively on the X-Box as long as the X-Box is a pariah in Japan. Sony would love to have Nintendo stuff on their system, don't get me wrong, but only if they were really fully third party. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 17:58 on Dec 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 17:54
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:There is no universe in which Sony would throw their own hardware under the bus like that. They would have no reason to. Nintendo, even in a position of strength, is not going to start publishing exclusively on the X-Box as long as the X-Box is a pariah in Japan. Oh there is one scenario. One scenario involving billions of dollars and the wailing and gnashing of teeth of generations of gamers. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 17:56
|
|
|
I get what you're saying about MS and Rare, but why should we take it as a stone cold fact that Sony wouldn't allow Nintendo to release games on their console without destroying another part of their business first? What precedent is there for that?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 17:58
|
|
|
Barudak posted:Oh there is one scenario. One scenario involving billions of dollars and the wailing and gnashing of teeth of generations of gamers. I'll be honest, I don't think Sony is in good enough financial shape to purchase Nintendo right now. Sony cut their full-year earning forecast by 40% in October. They're operating in black I believe but turning lower-than-expected profit. It would be hilarious if it happened but I don't see it. AdmiralViscen posted:I get what you're saying about MS and Rare, but why should we take it as a stone cold fact that Sony wouldn't allow Nintendo to release games on their console without destroying another part of their business first? What precedent is there for that? It's extremely common for companies to give up short-term benefits in term of a long-term marketing goal and to undercut their competitors in any way they can. A lot of business acquisitions are to get rid of competitors as much as they are to acquire new things. No company wants to assist their competitors if they can help it unless they get something of equal value out of it. You can make an argument that Nintendo IPs on their system are that value but it's kind of hard to argue that Nintendo IPs alone are worth it when the Vita is struggling against the 3DS and a future Nintendo handheld would be the Vita's successor's primary competition. Maybe if they were exclusive to Sony but it would be pretty unusual for a major third party developer with profitable IPs to develop for a single platform. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 18:07 on Dec 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 18:03
|
|
|
Gah I understand Microsoft didn't publish them, that is the point! You are confusing the two when you say things like "third party developers". It was most certainly Microsoft developers writing the code for the game, and someone else publishing it. That means first party developers, not third party. Which company published the game is not relevant to what I said, only which company created the game and decided what platforms it was to be on(and that company is Microsoft). Microsoft didn't contract a game out to third party developers, they made a game and contracted getting it published. I'm gonna drop this now though, I don't need to keep arguing about definitions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 18:05
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:I'll be honest, I don't think Sony is in good enough financial shape to purchase Nintendo right now. Sony cut their full-year earning forecast by 40% in October. They're operating in black I believe but turning lower-than-expected profit. It would be hilarious if it happened but I don't see it. Oh no, I was talking about what it would take to get them exclusively on the Bone. Sony won't require that; I have no doubt in my mind Nintendo will make titles for the PSNumber if they exit the console business.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 18:08
|
|
|
Jeffrey posted:Gah I understand Microsoft didn't publish them, that is the point! You are confusing the two when you say things like "third party developers". It was most certainly Microsoft developers writing the code for the game, and someone else publishing it. That means first party developers, not third party. Which company published the game is not relevant to what I said, only which company created the game and decided what platforms it was to be on(and that company is Microsoft). Microsoft didn't contract a game out to third party developers, they made a game and contracted getting it published. I'm gonna drop this now though, I don't need to keep arguing about definitions. Look at the non-Rare games like Age of Empires. It was developed by Backbone Entertainment and published by Majesco! Zoo Tycoon DS was developed by Altron and published by THQ. Blue Dragon was developed by feelplus published by Namco-Bandai. (and localized by Ignition Entertainment.) Microsoft was farming their IPs out for use on the GBA/DS because they didn't consider it a competitor. Rare worked on several games but were funded and published by third-party developers despite being a Microsoft studio at that time. This isn't arguing about definitions. I mean you're not wrong that Microsoft IPs were appearing on Nintendo systems and that a formerly-Nintendo-now-Microsoft developer was making them, but it's a very narrow and technical kind of correct. Barudak posted:Oh no, I was talking about what it would take to get them exclusively on the Bone. That would be even more hilarious but seems even more unlikely considering the Microsoft higher ups are apparently looking for ways to cut gaming division spending where they can. It would be almost be worth it just to see the internet reactions though. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 18:18 on Dec 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 18:13
|
|
|
Hobo Siege posted:Really? I thought the (good) Final Fantasy MMOs did well over there. Why the stigma? In Japan it's more common to play a multiplayer game in person than it is over the internet. Internet costs and speeds are pretty crappy so most all Japanese do AD-HOC gaming which is why PSP was so popular and why the 3DS has spot pass and why the DS in general pretty much fails at the internet. Final Fantasy MMOs are much more popular in China & South Korea over Japan. An example of this is if you look at Monster Hunter it never really had internet gameplay until it was on the Wii and Japan had 4 or 5 previous versions which sold millions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 18:16
|
|
|
flyboi posted:In Japan it's more common to play a multiplayer game in person than it is over the internet. Internet costs and speeds are pretty crappy Stop talking out of your rear end because Japan beats the hell out of the US in all three important areas of the Internet: Speed/Policies/Costs edit; They even have ISP's offering twice the speed of Google Fiber for crying out loud! edit: 51$ is what So-net is charging for 2Gbps down and 1Gbps up Asema fucked around with this message at 18:20 on Dec 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 18:18
|
|
|
Asema posted:Stop talking out of your rear end because Japan beats the hell out of the US in all three important areas of the Internet: Speed/Policies/Costs The two are actually not mutually exclusive.  The US has absolutely terrible internet infrastructure and perhaps more importantly it's really all over the place. But yeah, Japan has some problems with speed. They have good costs but a lot of congestion and a difficulty in building infrustructure, but for the most part they have a lot of high-speed internet access. They just don't have a big internet gaming culture. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 18:23 on Dec 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 18:19
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:The two are actually not mutually exclusive. It was more his comment that JP doesn't do internet multiplayer because of cost + speed when NA is getting a worse service at a higher price and still has a poo poo ton of multiplayer crap in MMO's/FPS and the like. It's more of a social ordeal rather than price/speed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 18:22
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:That would be even more hilarious but seems even more unlikely considering the Microsoft higher ups are apparently looking for ways to cut gaming division spending where they can. It would be almost be worth it just to see the internet reactions though. Oh absolutely no chance given their current direction unless the gaming division really prints the cash and Nintendo really tanks. It doesn't stop a sick and twisted part of me wanting to see that purely for the wailing and gnashing of teeth. Edit: No smiling anime Impatom is not the same But dinosaurs rule
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 18:23
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:I'll be honest, I don't think Sony is in good enough financial shape to purchase Nintendo right now. Sony cut their full-year earning forecast by 40% in October. They're operating in black I believe but turning lower-than-expected profit. It would be hilarious if it happened but I don't see it. I don't see what any of that has to do with Sony demanding that Nintendo drop a product in order to put Mario games on their home console. We can discuss this more in a few minutes, I'm busy deciding whether to buy EA's Battlefield 4 on Sony's PSN service or EA's Origin service.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 18:24
|
|
|
Asema posted:Stop talking out of your rear end because Japan beats the hell out of the US in all three important areas of the Internet: Speed/Policies/Costs That's great and all but Japan's FTTH is laughably awful. They designed their infrastructure so fiber runs from their uplinks over lines tethered to their power network which are then dropped in the home. These lines that end up dropping to the home connection are actually shared by multiple providers and a vast majority are saturated. Sure you can get "fast" internet but it's just like all the people in the US bitching that they never get their advertised speed because the lines are so over-saturated. Edit: Asema posted:It was more his comment that JP doesn't do internet multiplayer because of cost + speed when NA is getting a worse service at a higher price and still has a poo poo ton of multiplayer crap in MMO's/FPS and the like. It's more of a social ordeal rather than price/speed. It's more that Japan's internet is not really healthy for online gaming so it was ignored in the infancy and for the most part the culture doesn't exist that does elsewhere for online gaming. NA may have slower speeds but we have one of the most robust and stable networks infrastructure-wise on the planet. It doesn't stop lovely home telcos from loving up but overall our backbone is way better than Japans. flyboi fucked around with this message at 18:26 on Dec 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 18:24
|
|
|
Astro7x posted:It's kind of crazy to think that Nintendo is making 75% of all hardware sales, yet people want them to stop making hardware People want them to stop making the Wii U and not make anything like the Wii U. People are happy with the 3DS as it is and would probably buy a successor in 5+ years. Why is this so hard to understand?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 18:26
|
|
|
flyboi posted:That's great and all but Japan's FTTH is laughably awful. They designed their infrastructure so fiber runs from their uplinks over lines tethered to their power network which are then dropped in the home. These lines that end up dropping to the home connection are actually shared by multiple providers and a vast majority are saturated. Sure you can get "fast" internet but it's just like all the people in the US bitching that they never get their advertised speed because the lines are so over-saturated. When was the last time that you lived in Japan because it hasn't been an issue for awhile but the point still stands that it's still better than NA. flyboi posted:It's more that Japan's internet is not really healthy for online gaming so it was ignored in the infancy and for the most part the culture doesn't exist that does elsewhere for online gaming. NA may have slower speeds but we have one of the most robust and stable networks infrastructure-wise on the planet. It doesn't stop lovely home telcos from loving up but overall our backbone is way better than Japans. Again the internet in Japan has no part in it's online social aspect. Their culture does. edit; this is detracting from the main thread too much so I'm going to drop it Asema fucked around with this message at 18:30 on Dec 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 18:28
|
|
|
AdmiralViscen posted:I don't see what any of that has to do with Sony demanding that Nintendo drop a product in order to put Mario games on their home console. Sony is pushing for the Vita and PS4 to be part of a single large ecosystem of interconnected features. You can buy PS3 (and later PS4) games and get free Vita copies. You can use your Vita to play your PS4 games and a big advertised feature of both systems is the capability to do this. Sony's current marketing is very geared towards the idea that the Vita is a complimentary device that will amplify your ability to play the PS4. They are actively pushing for developers to allow you to play all games on the Vita and have developed a development kit specifically to make it as painless as possible to set up Vita controls for PS4 games. In short, Sony really, really, really wants you to consider the Vita and the PS4 part of a whole. If Nintendo began publishing on the PS4 while maintaining the 3DS, that interferes with that. Nintendo would probably not be overly eager to jump on allowing their games to be Remote Playable on the Vita. They would certainly not want to be part of cross-play promotions. They also would continue to be a major competitor in that field and make Sony's already struggling handheld struggle even further. So this is not the case of EA's Battlefield 4 on PSN or Origin where the two are not competitors. It would be closer to, say, Steam and Origin. Hey, why not go buy Battlefield 4 off Steam? I bet it's super cheap on sale. Barudak posted:No smiling anime I will miss the smiling anime but dinosaurs rule too hard to ignore.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 18:33
|
|
|
Asema posted:When was the last time that you lived in Japan because it hasn't been an issue for awhile but the point still stands that it's still better than NA. I basically work for the internet and the infrastructure is "ok" ever since the SJC was turned up in June but there are still areas that are highly saturated and your turn around will always be horrible. Just because you may have a working connection in your home does not say the same for the entire country and I can consistently create latency and dropped packet issues to Japan. Here's just a random ip I pulled from their allocated group: code:So please, explain to me how if inside their own country online gaming is tangible when a random ip can show over 120ms latency before it even LEAVES their internal network to cross into wherever a server is?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 18:36
|
|
|
Internet in North America is pathetic, in Canada more than the U.S. New Zealand trumps them both though in bad Internet though.ImpAtom posted:I'll be honest, I don't think Sony is in good enough financial shape to purchase Nintendo right now. Sony cut their full-year earning forecast by 40% in October. They're operating in black I believe but turning lower-than-expected profit. It would be hilarious if it happened but I don't see it. They were also supposed to post a second quarter profit and instead posted a loss. Moody’s Investors Service Inc. threatened to cut Sony’s credit rating to junk. This was early November. They are hoping to make a $305 million profit for the year. More importantly is that Sony posted five years of losses and only returned to profit due to a weak yen and selling off the Sony City Osaki for 111 billion yen and a portion of their stake in M3. They also recently sold their entire stake in Sky Perfect JSAT Holdings. I know people only like to hum and haw at Nintendo numbers, but Sony would have to sell off a lot to buy Nintendo. They are nowhere near as strong as people wish to believe they are. Nintendo might not hit their 100 billion yen operating profit they wish to for the 2013 annual but until we even hear someone say, "Iwata might get told to step down says investors" it's all a serious gun jump.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 18:44
|
|
|
Paper Jam Dipper posted:Internet in North America is pathetic, in Canada more than the U.S. New Zealand trumps them both though in bad Internet though. It's worth noting that credit rating "junk" is not actually as bad as it sounds. But yeah, Sony's not doing swimmingly in that regards at the moment. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 18:53 on Dec 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 18:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 22:09 |
|
|
Paper Jam Dipper posted:Internet in North America is pathetic, in Canada more than the U.S. New Zealand trumps them both though in bad Internet though. Your home internet may suck but the US has the strongest backbone with the most tier 1 providers. Hell where I live in South Dakota there isn't even a drop from tier 1 and I'm passing over a few tier 3 providers to get to our backbone. Japan has 1 major backbone provider NTT which is tier 1 and they can barely keep their infrastructure sustainable with the high subscriber rates. Not only that NTT has very little for peering so it's still pretty crappy leaving the country. There's a major reason why most all data centers being built are in Malaysia or Singapore and it's because the infrastructure is garbage elsewhere and they both have drops from the SJC which will tie into the regional backbones while keeping away from the clusterfuck that exists elsewhere. http://www.us.ntt.net/support/policy/routing.cfm http://bgp.he.net/AS2914 Compare their tier 1 peering/announcements to any in the US and you'll notice the severe lack of peering http://bgp.he.net/AS3356 http://bgp.he.net/AS7018 http://bgp.he.net/AS701
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 18:57
|
|