Would you like MS to team up with Nintendo? | |||
It's sounds impossible b... | 82 | 36.12% | |
No that would be awful! | 126 | 55.51% | |
I don't know. | 19 | 8.37% | |
Total: | 227 |
We will have master chief in Super Smash bros and other MS iconic characters. Massive.
As awesome as it would be I think there would be a better chance of hell freezing over!
AngryLittleAlchemist said:
Wow man....there's being misinformed which is very understandable, and then there's being a living meme. These literally sound like jokes someone would say on a gaming forum(ayeeeeeeeeeeeeee). -Uhm....you...you don't think Nintendo is a multi-billion dollar company too? Are you kidding me? Nintendo is worth more than Sony and if you were to focus on just Microsoft's gaming division, Nintendo would probably be the richest console manufacturer. Like seriously, I would expect that someone with a Professor Oak avatar would be on the former defending Nintendo with a shield and sword on hand, not spouting stuff that an out of touch 12 year old might say. I mean I can somewhat understand assuming that Nintendo is worth les than Sony and Microsoft, but you really think that they aren't a multi-billion dollar company? The rest of what you say is kind of confusing. If you're implying Nintendo didn't make a powerful console because they can't afford it, or because they didn't have the R&D to make a more powerful switch, then that's simply wrong. If you're implying that they made the Switch because they couldn't risk making a powerful console, or because they couldn't stand in two seperate markets(home and handheld consoles) then that's right but ... you're talking about merging Microsoft and Nintendo in which I would assume there'd be one console like a Switch. Microsoft contributing to a Nintendo console wouldn't solve anything except online features. I had to rewrite this entire paragraph cause what you're saying is really vague and can be interpreted many ways. - That... do you even know half the stuff you're saying? Nintendo might not be a "competitor in the console wars!" but that's becuase they don't want to be. They're being competitive by doing their own thing, they're not ignoring the market. Being "mainstream" has nothing to do with whether or not some 12 year old mentions you in a fictituos war and everything to do with how much product you sell, in which case Nintendo is most definitely mainstream. There is an element to competition but the "console wars" does not need to exist for Nintendo or Sony or Microsoft to be mainstream. - I never said it didn't have an infuence on them in the past, but most of the people who made Rare great are gone, they either work for Platonic games or some other studio. I'm waiting for the punchline because this seriously sounds like post 2001 discussion. |
I have no idea where to begin with your post, seriously i think you're confusing yourself more than i ever could. Please re-read my first response as many times as possible and then respond or just don't respond at all.
NATO said: It would be of no benefit to nintendo |
Yes it would.
gabzjmm23 said: We will have master chief in Super Smash bros and other MS iconic characters. Massive. |
And RareWare characters: Banjo and Conker... That would be awesome.
acdcste said: As awesome as it would be I think there would be a better chance of hell freezing over! |
Perhaps but you never know in the videogame industry.
There wouldn't be much benefit to nintnedo. Nintnedo is just being stubborn because they want to innovate and create alternatives to the norm. Nintnedo ips would be run into the ground if Microsoft had any influence on their development.
Apple and Nintendo makes a lot more sense in terms of brands. I can see that happen
I would say both are so opposite on their design philosophy and practices that this partnership would have too much attrition to work out.
duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."
Ka-pi96 said:
Is PC not an open platform? And considerably cheaper than consoles? So... how exactly did the cost of hardware go up? Sure if all you care about is the maximum possible pixels on your screen or that kind of junk then the cost probably will go up. For everybody else though it would work out cheaper. |
Where is gaming PC hardware cheaper than consoles? Certainly not in North America. Even a cheap gaming PC is $700. The average is probably more like $1200. That's 2-3 times the cost of a console.
One could argue that since everyone will buy a PC anyway, the cost of upgrading to a gaming rig is not so bad. That's true, to some extent. However, most people these days use laptops for their home computers. If you're going to get yourself a gaming laptop, its likely to cost $1500 or more, and be much less portable than a non-gaming laptop. So, the math is a bit more complicated than it seems at first.