dcIKeeL said:
bardicverse said:
dcIKeeL said:
Arius Dion said:
bardicverse said:
dcIKeeL said:
@malstrom
Hi Mr. expert in Psychology! Do you know what you come off as????...................A scared scared little pup, just backed up into a corner, barking anxiously hoping the big bad wolf would just go away.
LMAO!!!! The 360 didn't support the xbox 1 because it sold 25 million consoles!!!! It had like 16% market share, why would they support it? Clearly it wasn't popular, it was just a stepping stone for the 360 to launch off. When the 360 released do you really think the original xbox was going to get any attention?? It had no where near enough killer apps, nor had it built a strong enough name to garner it's own attention while in the shadow of big bro 360. The ps2 on the other hand was the most succesful console ever! Continuing to support it wasn't a smart move, it was the obvious move!!
Are you really comparing nintendo's scope to Microsoft's??? Microsoft is a behemoth, a beast!! Built to devour everything in it's vecinity in order to stand....ALONE!! Not above all. Microsoft doesn't want to compete with nintendo, it wants to eliminate it. It has the money to outlast it and the scope to outperform it. Remember, MS's ultimate goal is always attaining a MONOPOLY!! Why? It's Bill Gates favorite game...
The reason Natal is getting so much attention is because it WOWED the general public. It didn't just wow the gaming public. We get wowed at things like cover systems and such that the general public just doesn't care for. Natal trancended all demographics and just wowed the world. It's pushing the limits of current technology not playing it safe in the tried and true ground of technology. It's is not the eye toy or pseye or little wiimotes, it is a product trying to revolutionize a revolution.
There's no product to hype??? Clearly there are, as well as games to show it off with, as well as having capabilities outside of gaming itself. Like UI navigation and interaction. They are going from show to show because people are very curious about it and want to see it in action. Microsoft has bought 2 camera companies and is looking to buy the 3rd who focus on this type of technology. They are recruiting extra help as well as eliminating companies from which sony and nintendo as well as any other companies can aquire the tech from. Do you really think they aren't serious? There's no product? 1000'S of developers hav kits in their hands as I type this. It's coming and you know full well. HAHAHAHA!! But of course, that's why you ranted so much.
The Xbox Natal rumor is just a rumor!!! However, it is a rumor I believe has a good chance to be true. The rumor however is not a new console, as in Microsoft's 8th gen console. The rumor is a new sku. That's all. It will be no different than a slim model, just more perks. I predict it'll be slightly smaller than the 360, about 10% smaller but no more. This will be largely do to the Natal Camera intergration. The internal hardware however will be substantially scaled downed. With a 32nm chip and a 45-60nm chip. As well as smaller more efficient heat sink etc. In terms of power it will be decently upgraded however. They are reportedly aiming for a price point below 300$ which is quite cheap for all the perks it has.
It's inevitable, MS will take over the gaming industry. Look at all it's gained in it's short time in the industry against heavily established, deeply entrenched companies like Sony and Nintendo. Do you think it's going to stop? BTW, you are aware that the HD consoles are getting closer and closer to the Wii's sales, right?
|
Its hard to believe you got into Columbia with writing skills like that. Blah. Stick to coding, man.
|
LOL!
|
It's really quite absurd that any of you would bash my writing in a forum. It is obvious that I am writing in speech format, similar to a journalist. Undergrads are generally not allowed to write like a journalist and my Professors would kill me, but what the heck, it's a thread. If one is writing in speech format it is to be expected that the writing would be as fragmented as speech itself.
Instead of bashing my writing why don't you just respond to my post?
ps: Columbia has one of the best Computer Science programs in the world.
|
I don't know any proper journalist that would write with 30 exclamation points behind their words. Your post is full of ignorance on many levels and reeks of fanboyism. For example, forgive me if I cherrypick, I don't have the time to write in lengthly detail:
1 - Your scared pup/wolves comment to the poster you replied to. Wolves are an endangered species throughout the world. Using that reference is not only ironic, but counterproductive to the point you're trying to make.
2 - XB and MS dropping support. Backwards compatibility was promised to 360 fans at launch, only to find out it was a partial BC. Thus, people will want to keep their original XB to go back and play some XB games that won't work on the 360. Sure, MS had to cut the umbiblical cord to the XB, but supporting it was in no way a bad decision.
3 - You contradict yourself in paragraph 3 and 7, first stating that MS has a much bigger scope, to eliminate companies like Nintendo, then go on to say that Nintendo is heavily established. Nintendo has theoretically beein around since the 1800s. MS, roughly 25 years. You're betting on the nerdy geek in class to win the fight against the Varsity linebacker. This reeks of blind fanboyism.
4 - Natal hasn't wowed the general public, MS only has pitched through the media venues it holds stocks in. Thus far, the public view is still neutral, especially with the amount of glitches shown during presentations.
5 - Columbia is a great school all around, especially for medicine. What I am saying is, you might be a bright programmer, but your views might need to be toned down. If you're going to go into the game industry, no one is going to want a rabid fanboy on their project.
|
When I reffered to a Journalist style of writing i was refering to the fact that they are allowed to bend and even break the rules. Journalists sometimes choose to write as if they were having a conversation with the reader. Of course they rarely ever opt to use excessive exclamation points etc. However, I was simply using excessive remarks and punctuation for emphasis. I perceived Maelstroms' post just like you perceived my own; A mad fanboy ranting. I am not a fanboy and I am was not ranting. All the remarks that sound preposterous were meant tongue in cheek. I was simply spewing non existent hate on my part in an attempt to make maelstrom see how ridiculous he sounded to me.
The pup/wolves thing is just figurative speech. Nearly all forms are figurative speech are absurd and incorrect. "Kill two birds with one stone". Nevertheless, people do not cease to use them. Figurative speech is simply effective at getting ones' point across. Besides Bardicverse, you sound like one of my professors. Lighten up! Lol
When I reffered to the original xbox I was speaking from a buisness standpoint. I believe that support for first xbox longer than neccesary simply made no sense buisness wise. The Xbox just wasn't profitable. Additionally, people presume Microsoft just cut off everything xbox when really they did still support it to a reasonable extent. The backwards compatibility was partial, but most games were compatible with the 360. Microsoft also started the now defunct Xbox Originals. The 'Originals' library was a small one, but it existed nonetheless. My comments in regard to the first Xbox were also within the parameters of a comparison with the choice Sony made to support the PS2. Support of the PS2 on Sony's part made alot more sense than support of the Xbox on Microsoft's part. The most important factor in the end was the fact that Microsoft was new to the video game industry and not in good shape. Microsoft needed to concentrate their full attention on the 360 in order to truly challenge the titan Sony was at the end of the 6th console generation. Microsoft would not have been able to do this while spreading out their forces to failed ventures on account of politics. The company simply cut their losses and built off of them.
I can see how you believe I contradicted myself in my post. I don't think this is the case. First of all I was speaking exclusively in terms of the video game industry. Nintendo is synonymous with video games. You are correct that nintendo has been around for more than a century, but for most of that century Nintendo maintained a fledgling existence. They were initially a Japanese playing card company and subsequently attempted a number of different buisness ventures before finally settling on video games in the mid 70s. Nintendo as we know it today didn't exist until 1975 at the earliest. In addition, prior to the 1970s Nintendo had not built a name for itself or remained in a particular field of buisness long enough to dignify the claim that they were an established company. Nevertheless, within the context of the Video Game Industry Nintendo is quite possibly the most recognizable brand video games possess. In the present one can argue that Sony is equally as popular, but prior to the 21st century Nintendo was without a shadow of a doubt the face of video games. If you recall, many people in the 80's and 90's reffered to any video game console as Nintendo. The one consistent aspect of Nintendo that has always remained the same is that they are a one trick pony. They choose one field of buisness and stick with it. This works for them and against them. On the positive end, concentrating on just one field allows you to put your best possible effort into play. On the other hand, as the industry evolves and gets ever more dynamic and complex Nintendo suffers the potential of the industry growing beyond their scope. Nintendo is going to have to expand as a company if they are to remain competitive in video games. Microsoft and Sony are better built to compete and exist in the direction the industry is headed in. Both companies are diverse and have a wider scope than Nintendo does. They have also proven they can effeciently concentrate on numerous fields of buisness at a time. When it comes down to it, Microsoft is a bigger, stronger and richer company. Bill Gates looks very nice and nerdy but over the years he's changed. His success has given him an absurd level of confidence. The main thing that gets lost in his geeky demeanor is how competitive he really is. His competitive drive is akin to an all time great athlete like Kobe Bryant. For a substantial amount of years Microsoft possessed a monopoly over the home computer OS market.
(I will continue this post later. I purchased a new Iphone 3G S and some itune servers appear to be down. So annoying!!!)
|
You really do like to write walls of text do you? Please remember that sometimes the best arguments are the simplest. Well, I can write walls of text too.
If you have read the "finding Ninintendo's sword" and the "Finding Nintendo's shield" articles that Malstrom has written, you should know that Nintendo is turning Sony's and Microsoft's advantages into their wekanesses. You can argue that Microsofts first-party studios and Sony's first party studios is on par with Nintendo's studios (Which would be silly, but still open to discussion) But, because Sony and Microsoft are no true game compainies like Nintendo, their first party studios isn't as integrated as Nintendo's are.
Nintendo's first party is very integrated with the hardware divisions, and thus have a much easier time making software following the goal of the company. Nintendo has turned the expanded market into a batlleground of first party titles, (as evident by how much Nintendo games sell on Wii) and therefore this great "scope" that you say microsoft has is irrelevant. Microsoft will never win in the expanded market unless they can integrate their goal with the hardware and software as good as Nintendo does.
You said thousands of dev kits for Natal were allready handed out, but that's irrelevant too since this is not a battle about third party. Third parties will make their downmarket (casual) games for Wii, because it will not be worth it to make for an HD system. You said that Microsoft is doing well as a first entrant into the market, but no they are not. With the 360 they are worse off than the N64 in terms of marketshare, the PS1 had a virtual monopoly, and the PS2 sold even more, 360 isn't even close to those numbres. Nintendo with the NES and the SNES were also much more sucessful that Microsoft has been. M$ expected the 360 to give them the leading position this gen, it did not and this great "scope" that Microsoft thought would be their strenght is now their weakness.
You say that Microsoft is a stronger and richer company than Nintendo, and that Microsoft can outlast Nintendo (whatever that's supposed to mean since Nintendo will never lose money on their hardware). Even if they are a bigger comapny, Nintendo has certain things that Microsoft doesn't have. They have their Nintendo franchises, which is probably the reason they survived the Playstation dominance (that and their handhelds). Nintendo having their core franchises means that demand for Nintendo systems will never ever reach zero, thus Microsoft will never ever be able to gain a monopoly over the game industry. If you think Microsoft can buy Nintendo, that is also incorrect, Nintendo is a japanese companyy and can only be taken over if both countries governments agree (which they never will).
You also said this: "Microsoft and Sony are better built to compete and exist in the direction the industry is headed in." It makes me wonder where you have been the ast few years. Nintendo has changed the direction that this industry is moving at, and Sony and Microsoft didn't have time to change. But... maybe the reason as to why I find that quote way off is becuse I might have forgotten that "Nintendo is always doomed".
Also, why are you talking about Bill Gates? I thought that he didn't work at MS anymore.
(Edit: I would also like to add that Microsoft has Sony to worry about as well.)
