| Michael-5 said: I'm assuming because you have 74 posts only, and a dozen of them here, that you were banned for being insulting towards others. Please don't talk down to others, especially in a debate where you have proven very little. It's just rude... |
Who is talking down?, I am simply pointing out that your inability to do any form of research for your "facts" is shocking.
| Michael-5 said: Anyway I've already shown at least a dozen times how Nintendo innovated the market. Damn may I be if I don't know some low volume, debunk company from the 70's or 80's made a similar peripheral. My arguement was Nintendo was innovative for X reasons, it doesn't matter that the Game & Watch was the first dual screen handheld, it's still Nintendo, and shows us how Nintendo is innovative. |
This is where you trip up entirely, were I attacking nintendo for the hell of it like a fanboy would I openly and accurately state areas and specifics where they DID innovate? I seriously doubt I would, I just don't enjoy seeing people crediting them for innovations that are not their own, or peddling certain things as facts, without actually knowing if they really are or not.
Your all out denial of the undeniable advancements made by Microsoft and Sony on their consoles only further underlines your agenda on the matter.
Take for example the following points:
Xbox (classic) ethernet port:
Your rubuttal was to claim dreamcast had it first - It did not, it had a modem, when this was pointed out, you backpedaled to "well it was still internet lol!", the ethernet port on the original xbox could be used for internet, or connecting to a local network to share files and on some titles have internet-free multi-console multiplayer, that's a huge difference between a slow dialup system.
PS2 being the first console to allow game updates/patches:
Again your claim was dreamcast was first, I pointed out that this wasn't the case and detailed exactly why, yet you somehow came back at me with the ludicrous notion that actually yes, game data and patches could indeed be downloaded and installed to the whopping space available on the.. 128KB of storage.. take away the 28KB reserved for system use and you have 100KB, even on a 56K dialup modem of the time, 100KB would be filled within 50 seconds.
Game patches were server side and had to be downloaded every time the game was run, direct to the dreamcasts RAM, of all of these games only two actually did any sort of patching and those were phantasy star online and quake 3 arena, both server side, both updating only the core network executable and server configuration files on access with the former, phantasy star online, also allowing up to 1mb of custom patches for regional and festive events while the service was operational.
So, to be blunt, you're wrong, but rather than accept that you defended your stance on it without actually having any real knowledge on the matter, which begs the question, why even defend it at all if you don't actually know?
| Michael-5 said: Nintendo is innovative, you yourself have agreed with many of my points, no sense arguing over details. |
Yes, they are, but I would appreciate it if you would actually do some research into WHY, rather than just taking a stab in the dark and hoping for the best.
Innovation has nothing, what so ever, to do with popularity, it does not matter if an unknown company that did something first sold just one unit, the fact remains that they were the first company to do it, coming along and doing the same decades later in a product that ends up being successful does not give you the right to claim the innovation was your own.
